Last week I took three days off work to attend one of the largest events in the cycling industry. Going as a member of the media, it was three days of nonstop action that blended the sporting side of the industry with the business side. If you are already deep into cycling you probably know exactly what I am talking about, but for those who are not, this week I will be sharing my takeaways from the 2026 Sea Otter Classic.

Sea Otter

For the uninitiated, Sea Otter is a four-day cycling industry event that takes place in Monterey, California. This year marked the 36th edition of the event and the fifth year with Life Time as the title sponsor. When I describe it to friends who have never been, two descriptions come to mind. The first is a slogan displayed at the entrance that reads “welcome to your bike family reunion.” The second is a newer one I love, courtesy of Built on Bikes friend Sarah Sturm, who recently called it “Bike Coachella.”

The actual happenings at the event make both references easy to understand. Sea Otter is one of the largest cycling industry expos in the world, with over 1,000 brands converging at Laguna Seca Raceway to launch, demo, and showcase their newest products. It is a premier venue for industry networking and brand press, and for someone like me with a deep interest in the business side of cycling, the access is unbeatable.

The other side of Sea Otter is the athletic competition. Offering pro and amateur races across nearly every cycling discipline, the event attracts over 6,000 athletes who pay to compete in marquee events. Since Life Time acquired Sea Otter in 2021, it has become the official kickoff race for the Life Time Grand Prix. Grand Prix contenders and elite athletes from around the world tackle Sea Otter’s demanding 90-mile gravel course for prize money and industry recognition.

Together, the sporting events and expo draw over 70,000 visitors across the four-day festival. This was my third year attending and it remains one of the events I look forward to most, especially now that I am actively engaged with the industry. If you love bikes, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

What did I do while I was there?

Before I dive into my takeaways from the festival, it makes sense to briefly fill you in on what I actually did while I was there. I love photography, so the mission on day one was to capture images of the pro gravel race on Thursday. Thankfully, I got pulled into another mission that complemented that goal nicely.

A few days before the event I received a message from my friend Deb Urewicz-Kocourek, one of the best bike mechanics in the sport. She asked if I could provide feed zone support for an athlete she had connected with through USA Cycling’s collegiate all-star program. My answer was an immediate yes. Anything that helps a developing athlete is an easy call for me. The athlete was Nathan Surowiec, and we hit it off right away, making the experience of supporting him in the pro race a genuine pleasure.

While I was in the feed zone I made two new friends who will come up later in this piece. The remainder of my time at Sea Otter was spent networking throughout the expo and attending a private industry event that had everyone talking. That event is where I want to start with my takeaways. I will cover the business-oriented observations first and then move to my takeaways for the sport and athlete development.

X-LAB, the elephant in the room

The private event I referenced was a US launch party for X-LAB Bikes, and it turned out to be one of the bigger storylines coming out of Sea Otter. So what is X-LAB? X-LAB is a performance-oriented race bike line from Chinese manufacturer XDS, positioned as their flagship offering. Much like Cannondale’s Lab71 lineup, these are the top of the line bikes raced by the company’s WorldTour team, XDS-Astana.

The event itself had an interesting energy. On one side of the room you had the Chinese delegation of executive leadership from both X-LAB and XDS, and on the other you had people like Nathan and me who were there to see what all the fuss was about. The venue was upscale by bike industry standards, held at a private golf course clubhouse. Everything felt deliberate: bikes were strategically placed throughout the space and X-LAB’s US team lined the perimeter in branded shirts, ready to answer questions and pitch the product.

The event culminated in a series of speakers including XDS CEO Yanke (Edwin) Tan. The central message was clear: X-LAB has emerged virtually overnight as the biggest disruptor in the US bike market in decades. The brand had officially launched in the US just one week earlier and had already sold 90% of its inventory to over 50 independently owned bike shops across the country. The biggest selling point was price. Top of the line, full carbon race bikes with mid-tier groupsets retailing for well under $3,000. Everyone in the room had the same reaction: the hype is real.

That realization landed differently depending on who you asked. For some it was an alarm bell, for others an opportunity. I could not help but notice the parallels to broader macroeconomic conditions. We have heard increasingly that the US is ceding its position as the dominant economic force in the world, while China has accumulated leverage through an enormous stockpile of resources, low-cost production, and government-funded innovation. X-LAB is that dynamic playing out in practice.

The other theme that stood out was X-LAB’s self-described startup mentality. They have a lean, scrappy team moving fast and taking the market by storm. Working in tech in the age of AI, the pattern feels familiar. One day brands like Canyon and Specialized seem untouchable despite their financial headwinds, and then almost overnight a new product emerges that threatens to unsettle them entirely.

X-LAB’s most significant structural advantage is vertical integration, which feels timely given my recent piece on ENVE. XDS produces their own carbon fiber, which substantially reduces the cost of building bikes and is a core reason they can price so aggressively. They have also secured a partnership with Shimano and have plans to introduce their own componentry in the future, putting them on a path toward near-complete vertical integration. Currently selling through a combination of direct-to-consumer and independent bike shops, I have little doubt that once they reach maturity in the US market, XDS-branded retail stores will follow. That feels like a matter of when, not if.

The potential for significant industry disruption is real and could cause genuine turbulence in the US market, but a lot of it feels like self-inflicted wounds from the incumbents. The point was made at the event that the average US consumer cannot afford a race bike with mid-tier components on one or even two months of earnings. X-LAB is meeting consumers where they are and delivering a legitimate product at a price that actually makes sense. My view is simple: if this gets more people on race bikes and ultimately into the sport, then the industry needs to take a hard look at what consumers really need.

For development, a brand like this is significant. Young riders who do not come from wealthy families can access competitive, great looking equipment at a fraction of the traditional cost. For bootstrapped development teams and collegiate programs, that is a genuine breakthrough. Time will tell how far X-LAB and XDS can go, but they are absolutely worth watching over the coming years.

We will be getting more investors in the right rooms

A few weeks before Sea Otter I connected with Brian Bonham from PeopleForBikes. PeopleForBikes is a multifaceted organization that promotes cycling in the United States through lobbying for better policy, improved access, and broader adoption. They also function as a trade association that helps bring together investors, brands, and communities. It is exactly the kind of work I talk about regularly on Built on Bikes.

Brian and I planned to meet at Sea Otter to discuss an initiative that shares a lot of the same goals as Hill Climbers. Without getting ahead of myself, there is an event in the works that will bring notable investors together to learn about and discuss investment into the bike industry. I have already been involved behind the scenes in making some things happen and I look forward to sharing more as the details come together.

People want to be like the cool kids

I will admit upfront that I may be biased here given some close affiliations I have with this brand, but one newcomer to Sea Otter that absolutely stood out was MAAP. My first touchpoint with MAAP was at last year’s Big Sugar through their activation with Leni from Holy Spirit of Gravel. Since then they have worked directly with the Life Time Grand Prix to help shape the future of gravel racing, and I think they continued to build on that vision at Sea Otter through their Pro.Fwd gravel development team and the sponsored leaders jersey for the Life Time Grand Prix.

In my opinion, MAAP was a top contender for best experiential marketing at Sea Otter. Their booth was designed to be a genuine hangout spot, complete with coolers full of water and beer, bean bags, and a rotating cast of representatives who embody cool cycling culture without an ounce of pretentiousness. Walking around an expo you sometimes dread awkward vendor interactions, but that was never a concern at the MAAP booth.

The brand also showed up strongly through their activations throughout the weekend. They partnered with Movemint to streamline event signup and organization, giving participants an easier way to keep track of what they were attending. The activations themselves were equally well conceived: fun group rides, making beaded jewelry alongside pro athletes like Payson McElveen, and a rowdy afterparty hosted in collaboration with Away Message. Taken together, they represented the brand perfectly.

MAAP’s products are flashy but deeply performance oriented, and their Sea Otter presence captured that balance exactly. They celebrated the high level performances of their athletes while making it clear that everyone is welcome to have fun along the way.

Development was on full display

I left Sea Otter with a full heart because I saw so many athletes, brands, and organizations making development possible for young athletes. The following are some highlights, but they don’t even begin to scratch the surface when it comes to all the developmental programs and activities that were happening at Sea Otter.

Nina Machina - Mach1 Devo

While waiting in the feed zone to hand off bottles to Nathan, I somehow ended up standing between some people who I quickly realized were awesome and easy to get along with. One of them was Nina Machina, who asked me to take a clip of her handing a bottle to one of her athletes. One after another, more riders passed through wearing the same kit. When I asked how many athletes she had, her answer was seven, to which my reaction was something along the lines of: holy shit.

An accomplished athlete herself, Nina channeled her passion for performance coaching into an opportunity for U23 riders with Mach1 Devo. She has even convinced several of her sponsors to support her team with bikes, nutrition, and kits. There is something genuinely exciting about meeting someone like Nina, a high-performing athlete who chooses to turn that energy outward and invest it in the next generation. You will be hearing more about this team in the newsletter because I will be joining them at Unbound in just over a month!

Bike Tennessee

Although I fully claim California as home now, I was born in Tennessee and spent the first 22 years of my life there. The day before Sea Otter my mom called to tell me about an organization she had seen featured on the local news. The state government was working with a group to designate and build more off-road trails across Tennessee, similar in spirit to what Bentonville has done in Arkansas. I filed it away and planned to look into it after Sea Otter.

As it turned out, I did not have to wait that long. Walking through the expo I stumbled across a booth that read “Bike Tennessee,” and sure enough it was the very same organization my mom had been telling me about. The concept is straightforward: take what Bentonville did with bike access and apply it across an entire state. With support from the state government, Bike Tennessee has already developed over 90 road and gravel cycling routes to promote cycling among both residents and visitors. Expect to hear more about them in this newsletter as well.

Kate Courtney - She Sends Foundation

Kate Courtney needs no introduction, but for the uninitiated: she is an American mountain biking legend with two world titles and a career full of results that speak for themselves. Rather than focusing solely on her own racing, Kate founded the She Sends Foundation to strengthen mountain biking development programs for girls across the country. The foundation writes checks, provides guidance and visibility, and connects youth programs to a powerful network of allies.

Kate recently made the move to racing as a privateer and has put the She Sends Foundation front and center in that effort. Wherever she races she will be wearing a She Sends jersey from Rapha and riding a bike from Allied Cycleworks. At Sea Otter, despite competing in two of the most demanding events over the span of three days, Kate was still out on the ground connecting with and mentoring young athletes through activations. She is a legend on and off the bike.

Gravel live coverage is ready for the mainstream

There was no denying that Life Time significantly raised the bar on live coverage of the pro gravel race compared to previous years. Standing in the feed zone felt like being at a WorldTour event. Tension was already high as everyone waited for their athletes to come through, and then in the distance you could hear the faint drone of a helicopter and the whole zone knew it was game time.

Life Time has used camera-equipped helicopters for a while, but that moment crystallized just how high the production level has become. Beyond the helicopter footage, there were camera crews and reporters stationed on course, nonstop live commentary, separate streams covering the entirety of both the men’s and women’s races, and cameramen on e-mountain bikes providing point of view footage from inside the front groups.

As most people know by now, the men’s race came down to a sprint finish between Bradyn Lange and Keegan Swenson. Everyone in the feed zone was watching the final moments play out on their phones, and the energy was indistinguishable from what you would feel watching the finish of Paris-Roubaix. With a few refinements, like the introduction of time gap tracking, these streams deliver nonstop action that is genuinely worthy of a major streaming platform. I believe we will see that happen within the next five years.

Leaving with renewed energy

Cycling is a hobby, a culture, a language, and a family. Sea Otter presents the sport in all of its glory. It kicks off a busy season for me and for the athletes I follow, one that will run all the way through October, and I could not feel more energized heading into it. For all the doom and gloom that has surrounded the industry over the last few years, Sea Otter is a powerful reminder of how deeply people love bikes and why this is a resilient industry that will outlast any one brand.

To all the wonderful people I met last weekend, thank you for reminding me why I spend hours of my free time writing these stories every week. And to all my industry friends, I cannot wait to see you out there soon.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

• Making collegiate cycling a clear pathway to a professional career the way mainstream sports like basketball and football already are

• How NCAA classification would add legitimacy to the sport

• How to attract the financial investment needed to create more programs and pursue NCAA status

• How a healthier collegiate landscape would help identify more talent, as was the case with Sarah Sturm

Two themes have remained consistent throughout: finding ways to fund growth and expansion, and building the competitive infrastructure that allows athletes to discover the sport and progress to the next level.

My previous conclusion was that the challenge is far too large to be solved by any one person or entity, requiring instead a broad network of companies and wealthy individuals willing to invest. I still believe that is largely true, but recently I have started thinking about how to narrow the number of investors needed to drive a significant shift in collegiate cycling.

I believe there is one company uniquely positioned to benefit from making a serious investment in collegiate cycling, and in doing so, spark the kind of systemic change the sport has been waiting for.

Finding a company that can do it all

Finding individuals to invest in organizations like USA Cycling and individual varsity programs will be a long and difficult process. To date, there is not much to pitch prospective investors on beyond a passion-driven appeal: if you love cycling, this is your chance to make a lasting impact on the sport domestically. There simply is not enough room for meaningful financial return at that level because investments of this kind are about growing the sport, not generating profit.

If we could instead pitch a larger organization that both genuinely cares about the sport and stands to benefit financially from betting on collegiate cycling, we would eliminate a significant amount of the inertia currently holding back progress at the collegiate level. I believe the company that stands to benefit both itself and collegiate cycling the most through financial investment is Zwift.

A quick background on Zwift

While many Built on Bikes readers are likely already familiar with Zwift, here is a quick primer for those who are not. Zwift is an online platform that provides a virtual, gamified indoor training experience for cyclists and runners. Before Zwift, indoor training meant riding alone, without dynamic power-based conditions, and with little incentive to push beyond basic fitness gains. As many cyclists will tell you, indoor training was essentially a necessary form of torture.

That is the problem Eric Min set out to solve when he founded Zwift in 2014. On the platform, riders can explore virtual environments with dynamic conditions including climbs and descents that more closely mimic the feel of riding outdoors. They can also see and interact with other riders who are online, adding a social dimension to what had previously been an isolating experience. Perhaps most importantly, Zwift introduced racing to the indoor training environment, allowing riders to compete against others from around the world in real time.

Since its founding, Zwift has established itself as the pioneer in indoor training and has largely dominated the space. The company has attracted significant backing from premier venture capital and private equity firms including KKR, Permira, and Highland Europe, with their most recent raise being a $450 million Series C led by KKR.

Those investments have enabled Zwift to further develop the platform, introduce hardware that allows riders to train without a road bike, and pursue high-profile marketing plays like becoming the title sponsor of the Tour de France Femmes, positioning the brand as a meaningful force for development in the sport. Today, however, the indoor training market is growing more competitive, with platforms like TrainingPeaks Virtual, Rouvy, and TrainerRoad emerging as credible alternatives.

Zwift remains the market leader, but has a clear opportunity to secure long-term market stability by investing in collegiate cycling and cementing itself as the definitive gateway into the sport for the next generation of athletes.

Why Zwift?

To meaningfully contribute to the progression of collegiate cycling, a brand first needs to be a stable and credible entity in its own right. Zwift is exactly that. Through its history as a company, Zwift has built a strong business model and the organizational capacity to take on the challenge of strengthening and reimagining what collegiate cycling could look like. Before diving into how they could do that, it is worth examining what makes Zwift an attractive brand to be associated with in the first place.

Strong finances: As already established, Zwift carries the backing of some of the most respected investors in the world, including KKR, Permira, and Highland Europe. Those investors have seen a future for the platform that promises significant upside, and when Zwift aligns itself with a movement or cause, it brings that investor attention along with it. For collegiate cycling, that kind of financial credibility is invaluable.

Zwift also operates a robust business model that generates revenue through paid subscriptions, hardware sales, and on-platform advertising. Their emphasis on community and development has created genuine network effects, where more people want to join the platform simply because people they know are already on it. Zwift is a proven operator with a track record of large, successful marketing campaigns, and they are more than capable of navigating an expansion into the collegiate cycling landscape.

Reputation: Zwift has built community into the fabric of their platform and every piece of outward-facing media they produce. Beyond community, the brand has become a symbol of development within the sport. Their title sponsorship of the Tour de France Femmes was a key catalyst in bringing that race back, an event that has proven to be a landmark moment for women’s cycling globally.

As an indoor training platform, Zwift also carries the reputation of being accessible and safe. For the parents of young riders, there is no concern about crashes or the dangers of riding on open roads. For new riders themselves, the barrier to entry is low, making Zwift a natural on-ramp for people discovering cycling for the first time, people who could one day pursue the sport at the collegiate level.

Infrastructure: Zwift’s most popular feature is its online racing platform, which allows athletes to compete against each other from the comfort of their own homes. For collegiate cycling programs, this feature could be a significant unlock on multiple fronts. First, it provides a standardized race format that enforces equal competition by eliminating the disparity in equipment quality and training conditions that exists between riders and programs at different resource levels.

Zwift also generates an electronic record of every race and training session, enabling easy and comprehensive data analysis across athletes. That consistency makes talent identification more reliable and more equitable than traditional methods.

If Zwift were to enter the collegiate cycling landscape, they would do so with a business model and infrastructure that has been fully optimized over years of development, allowing them to plug into collegiate competition relatively seamlessly.

Reimagining collegiate cycling

By this point the direction of this article is probably clear: if USA Cycling were able to partner with Zwift to introduce e-cycling as a collegiate discipline, access to the sport would increase significantly and collegiate cycling would finally have a well-capitalized partner with the resources needed to fund meaningful expansion, including a push toward NCAA classification.

This is not a new idea. I am aware that discussions have already taken place within our governing bodies about implementing something along these lines, but it is unclear to me whether those conversations also included plans for Zwift to inject capital into the sport. The competitive model for collegiate e-cycling is straightforward enough that it does not need deep explanation here. What is more worth exploring are the benefits this kind of partnership would create for both collegiate cycling and Zwift.

How Zwift benefits collegiate cycling

The list of benefits Zwift could bring to collegiate cycling runs deeper and further than it might initially appear. Here are the areas where I think a Zwift investment and competition partnership would most meaningfully elevate the sport at the collegiate level.

Visibility

Whenever Zwift embarks on a major marketing campaign, the broader cycling community takes notice. The Tour de France Femmes is the most dramatic example, but initiatives like Zwift Academy have also captured the attention of cycling fans, Zwift users, and WorldTour teams alike. Fans and professional teams are two audiences that collegiate cycling desperately needs to reach if it is ever going to become a legitimate and recognized pathway to a professional career.

The NCAA carries significant brand power of its own, and if the two organizations were to join forces with Zwift becoming the title sponsor of NCAA collegiate cycling across all disciplines, the scale of that partnership would command attention well beyond the existing cycling community. A multi-million dollar deal between Zwift and the NCAA would be difficult to ignore.

Accessibility

Building collegiate cycling into a true pipeline for professional development requires at least three distinct talent funnels. The first is a funnel of high school riders flowing into collegiate programs. The second is a funnel of athletes from other collegiate sports discovering cycling as a natural fit for their abilities. The third is a funnel of well-developed athletes exiting the collegiate level and stepping into elite or professional teams.

Zwift has the potential to strengthen all three.

At the pre-collegiate level, Zwift serves as a safe and accessible platform for young riders to develop, race, and generate meaningful performance data. Currently, collegiate cycling programs do not scout high school talent the way other collegiate sports do. If Zwift, USA Cycling, and collegiate programs can organize sanctioned leagues for high school riders, scouting becomes possible without requiring travel or chasing down power data that currently sits in isolation without context.

Within collegiate athletics, Zwift provides a low-barrier entry point for athletes from other sports to discover whether they have a natural aptitude for cycling. Imagine a collegiate cycling program with a few Zwift setups in a campus gym or performance center. Athletes from other sports who are not getting the opportunities they want could hop on a bike and take a power test. If the result is competitive with collegiate benchmarks, both the athlete and the program director get notified automatically.

For athletes exiting the collegiate level, Zwift provides professional teams with a reliable and standardized data set to scout from. Outdoor riding skills will obviously still need to be evaluated, but the reasonable assumption is that most athletes who enter the sport through Zwift will transition to outdoor riding over time. And riders who already compete outdoors will likely incorporate Zwift racing into their schedules once it becomes an official form of collegiate competition.

Scouting and development

Zwift offers a standardized racing format, and if collegiate competition is sanctioned by a governing body, there will be no room for athletes to inflate power numbers with inaccurate weight data. That makes it a reliable platform for professional teams to scout from. And when I say professional teams, I am not referring to WorldTour or even Pro Continental teams. The more realistic and immediate opportunity is at the Continental and domestic elite level.

Collegiate cycling already has a scouting problem rooted in inconsistent events and uneven race fields. Zwift offers a format that enables digital scouting without requiring context about how a specific race unfolded or guesswork about the strength of the field. There is still a tactical and skill element to scouting that cannot be fully captured on an indoor platform, but traditional outdoor race formats will remain available to fill that gap.

Outside investment

Zwift already carries a roster of prestigious investors, which creates an opportunity to expose the broader investment community to collegiate cycling through that existing network. The hope would be that individual partners or directors with an interest in cycling would recognize the opportunity in collegiate programs and direct capital toward initiatives that further develop the collegiate landscape.

Zwift also offers in-app sponsorship opportunities for outside brands, which could serve as another avenue for new brands to enter the collegiate cycling space, whether by sponsoring individual riders, teams, or programs directly.

Competitive Parity

I may be beating this point to death, but competitive parity is one of Zwift’s most compelling contributions to the collegiate cycling argument. The standardized racing format extends all the way down to the equipment used to compete, meaning there is no advantage to be gained from nicer gear. The only differentiator is the natural ability of the athlete.

More race days for current cyclists

For cyclists already competing in collegiate programs, Zwift offers an additional race format that requires no travel and no extra expense. Rather than racing on scattered weekend schedules, athletes can log race days more consistently, much the way a professional would. That regularity would meaningfully accelerate development and bring the US collegiate experience closer to the heavy race culture that defines cycling in Europe.

An easier transition to collegiate cycling 2.0

As we work toward a more professionalized and widely recognized collegiate cycling landscape, Zwift can serve as a meaningful on-ramp for that vision. Becoming an NCAA sport and standing up dozens of new varsity programs will not happen overnight, but a smoother transition point will accelerate the process considerably.

The majority of collegiate cycling teams are organized as club teams with varying levels of infrastructure and financial resources. Zwift offers a cost-effective way for these teams to allow their athletes to compete consistently against varsity programs and more established riders. It creates a genuine incentive for cyclists to choose a school while knowing they can still compete regularly and showcase their abilities to a wider audience.

Zwift’s digital record also provides a far more robust way to track growth in collegiate cycling than what currently exists. Today, the only participation data available comes through USA Cycling records of license holders and event participants. Zwift would enable deeper and more actionable insights, helping governing bodies become more strategic and data-driven in their efforts to grow the sport.

How collegiate cycling benefits Zwift

If Zwift were to sponsor collegiate cycling, it would function more as a mutual partnership than a one-way transaction. While Zwift would be investing in the growth of the sport, they would simultaneously be executing a large-scale marketing campaign targeting younger athletes at a critical stage of their development. There are several meaningful benefits Zwift would receive in return.

A new market entry point

If Zwift is looking to engage a younger demographic, and particularly one that may be discovering cycling for the first time, collegiate cycling presents a unique opportunity to reach that market at one of its most impactful inflection points.

Further differentiation in a competitive market

As more platforms like Rouvy, TrainerRoad, and TrainingPeaks Virtual enter the online training space, Zwift will need to continue solidifying its position as the incumbent product with the widest user base and strongest business model. There is significant room for growth in the US market, and Zwift is well positioned to capture the next generation of cyclists if they continue investing in the progression of the sport.

As we work to bring more capital into the collegiate cycling landscape, we should be looking beyond individual investors toward large corporate sponsors that can provide both structure and visibility for the sport. Zwift is the most compelling example of what that kind of partner could look like.

I have so many thoughts on this subject that I may revisit it in a future edition.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

The article highlighted Shimano seeing three straight years of declining profits, Giant’s profits shrinking by nearly half, and Canyon watching a third of its EBITDA disappear in 2025. Tariffs, inventory overhang, and deflation in China emerged as the primary macroeconomic factors weighing on big brands. The CEO of Giant summarized the environment simply by calling it “a feast and a famine.” All I could see in the article was famine, which raised an obvious question: who is feasting right now?

The answer, as I have written before, is smaller cycling companies with streamlined operations that are outperforming industry giants in key areas like margins, profits, and capital efficiency. While I have written about how brands like Pas Normal Studios are executing more efficiently than larger competitors like Rapha, I have also discussed how these smaller brands are becoming attractive targets for investors looking at M&A opportunities.

In my M&A article, I reviewed a market report from Houlihan Lokey that identified the key trends driving brand growth and stability. The main competitive advantages that emerged were:

• Vertical integration

• The ability to sell direct-to-consumer

• Strong brand identity

In that piece I highlighted brands I thought were ripe for acquisition and strategic investment, but I also briefly mentioned a company that had navigated two separate acquisitions while maintaining its brand identity with zero erosion from either transaction. That company is ENVE Composites.

With industry giants struggling, ENVE presents a genuinely interesting case study: a brand firmly established in the market while still being small enough to avoid the weight of being an industry giant. That positioning gives them a real opportunity to become a leading bike frame and component manufacturer if they play their cards right. They could realistically establish themselves as the go-to brand for mid to high-end bikes and components, taking meaningful market share from companies like Specialized and Roval, Trek and Bontrager, Scott and Syncros, and Giant and Cadex.

ENVE Composites

ENVE’s history as a company is an important part of understanding their path to accelerated growth in the near term. The Utah-based company was founded in 2007 under the name Edge Composites before rebranding to ENVE Composites in 2010. From the start, they focused on producing high-end carbon fiber cycling components including wheels, rims, and handlebars.

Throughout their history, ENVE has resisted industry norms by keeping manufacturing operations within their Utah facilities rather than outsourcing to Asia. That commitment to domestic, quality-first production helped establish them as a recognizable and respected brand at the premium end of the cycling components market.

As I mentioned in my piece on M&A trends, ENVE was acquired by Amer Sports for $50 million in 2016 and later sold to PV3 Investments in 2024 for an undisclosed amount. While those transactions appear to have had relatively little effect on the company’s overall strategy and direction, a significant inflection point came in 2021 when ENVE began producing their own bike frames for road and gravel.

Today the brand has built a reputation for best-in-class products, most visibly through their relationship with the top WorldTour team, UAE Team Emirates, and the sport’s dominant rider, Tadej Pogacar. ENVE’s refusal to cut corners or outsource for the sake of margins has made them one of the most prestigious brands in the industry.

Seizing the current opportunity

That same commitment, however, may now be working against them. Their 2024 sale for an undisclosed amount suggests their market share has remained relatively fixed, raising the question of whether their premium positioning has come at the cost of broader growth. It is the tradeoff that company leadership will need to carefully assess when considering future growth plans.

2026 presents a significant opportunity for stable, well-positioned brands to take market share from struggling industry giants. The question is how ENVE capitalizes on that window. The answer lies in leaning into their strengths more aggressively and expanding their reach faster than they have historically been willing to. Before we dive into how they do that, we should take a moment to acknowledge what has positioned them to take advantage of this unique opportunity.

Bikes are the catalyst for deeper vertical integration

Of the three competitive advantages I surfaced in my M&A article, ENVE has already nailed strong branding and direct-to-consumer capabilities. The area where they excel but could build on further is vertical integration.

Vertical integration is when a company owns more parts of its supply chain. ENVE already owns manufacturing and direct-to-consumer distribution, but there are still gaps in their product lineup that represent untapped opportunity. By introducing bike frames, ENVE effectively entered a small league of brands that touch virtually every product used on a ride. That is a meaningful shift, even if it does not fit the traditional definition of vertical integration perfectly.

In doing so, ENVE is moving away from being purely a components company and toward being a full bike manufacturer, more closely aligning with brands like Trek, Specialized, and Scott. The key distinction is that each of those brands started by making frames and later acquired third party companies to build out their in-house component lines, think Bontrager, Roval, and Synchros. ENVE did it the other way around.

That difference matters more than it might seem. By building components first and frames second, ENVE ensures better continuity across the entire product line, faster innovation, and performance that is optimized from the ground up rather than assembled through acquisition. For the remainder of this article, when I refer to vertical integration, this is what I mean: owning the production and sale of more product categories beyond road and gravel bikes, without relying on third party acquisitions to get there.

The challenges of further integration

The good news is that ENVE controls their own destiny if they choose to expand their product footprint. The bad news is that doing so would be expensive and carries real risk. As the old saying goes, you have to spend money to make money, and in this case the opportunity on the other side of that investment is significant.

ENVE may also have the right owner to pursue such a path. The majority shareholder, PV3 Investments, is the private investment vehicle of Mark Hancock, founder of PACS, a publicly traded healthcare company worth billions. According to Forbes, Hancock has a personal net worth of $2.3 billion, meaning PV3 is well positioned to inject meaningful capital into ENVE if they choose to do so.

With ENVE’s most recent post-money valuation estimated at around $20 million according to Pitchbook, even a modest capital injection could go a long way. Two million dollars in new R&D represents just 10% of the company’s estimated value and a fraction of a fraction of Hancock’s net worth. It is safe to say that many bike manufacturers would consider that funding position enviable.

Whether that capital ever gets deployed remains to be seen, but even if it does, macroeconomic headwinds would still need to be navigated. Inflation and softer consumer spending are pressuring ENVE’s core customer base, while tariffs are raising production costs on the supply side. ENVE assembles their products in the United States, but they do not produce their own raw materials. The primary one, carbon fiber, is imported entirely from Japanese auto manufacturer Mitsubishi, which is currently subject to a 15% base tariff on US imports. That added cost gets passed along the chain and ultimately lands on consumers who are already feeling the squeeze.

The natural question is whether vertical integration could extend to raw material production. The honest answer is probably not. Carbon fiber is not widely manufactured in the United States, and acquiring a manufacturer would be well beyond ENVE’s current scale. It is also likely that sourcing domestically would cost more than importing even with tariffs applied. This is simply a cost of doing business, and importantly, it is an industry-wide problem. ENVE is far from alone in dealing with it and it should not be a reason to slow production or investment.

Consolidate before the expansion

There is one final consideration before we get into what an ENVE market expansion could look like. Alongside any capital injection, ENVE should take a close look at their current product lines to determine whether there are auxiliary categories diverting resources that could be better deployed toward expansion. Without access to their financials it is difficult to say definitively, but product lines like cycling clothing, tires, and tools feel peripheral to the company’s core identity and competitive advantage.

Depending on the cost and profitability of those lines, freeing up resources by cutting them entirely could be a smart move before pursuing something larger.

Where ENVE could expand

It didn’t take me long to think of product lines that could be successful expansions for the brand. Looking at their competitors like Specialized, Trek, and Scott, there is plenty of inspiration to draw from and gaps to fill. Some of the expansion areas I suggest are provided through these competitor’s in-house brands we mentioned earlier, and some are not manufactured at all by the competitors or their in-house brands. ENVE can innovate and improve off their competitors and do it more efficiently. Here are the areas that make sense.

Suspension

This is a product category that none of the major brands currently cover, which may be by design, but I think ENVE has an advantage that their competitors do not. Large bike manufacturers typically outfit their gravel and mountain bike frames with third party suspension systems, most commonly RockShox or Fox. There are boutique suspension brands beyond these two, but RockShox and Fox have set the industry standard, making it far more cost effective for large manufacturers to spec their builds with existing systems rather than developing proprietary alternatives that would struggle to compete with the brand recognition those names carry.

Brand recognition and reputation. Sound familiar? ENVE is widely regarded as the premier high-end component manufacturer, and a move into suspension would make a significant splash. It would become a sought after option for riders and teams almost immediately.

The natural pushback is that ENVE does not even make mountain bike frames yet, so why start with suspension alone? The first reason is cost. Suspension is already an expensive R&D undertaking, and adding a new frame category would multiply that investment significantly. The second is quality assurance. ENVE cannot afford to cut corners on either frames or suspension given how much their brand reputation depends on delivering best-in-class products. The third reason is strategic consistency. Starting with components before expanding to frames has always been ENVE’s development playbook, and there is no reason to abandon it now.

The rollout could be even more deliberate by starting with gravel suspension forks before moving into mountain bike suspension. Keeping the initial focus narrow and centered on performance, specifically race-oriented forks for gravel and cross country mountain biking, would give ENVE the best chance of launching a product that immediately earns the credibility the brand demands. As product expansions go, this one feels like a natural next step.

Gear

I know I just suggested that ENVE reevaluate auxiliary lines like clothing, but there is one hardware-adjacent category that could actually make a lot of sense. If ENVE were to manufacture shoes and helmets, they would be positioned to take market share directly from competitors, since major bike manufacturers already produce both. ENVE’s obsession with quality gives them a smarter entry point than most.

The story of the bike industry since COVID has largely been one of inventory overhang. Brands like Trek and Bontrager carry so many lines of bikes, shoes, and helmets that they are left with overstock they cannot move quickly enough. ENVE can sidestep that trap entirely by entering the market with a focused lineup: two shoe models, one for gravel and mountain bike and one for road, and one or two helmets.

ENVE’s reputation for producing superior carbon fiber products creates an immediate opportunity to compete at the top end of the market, not just against the shoe lines of major bike manufacturers but against dedicated cycling shoe companies as well.

Keeping it simple

To be realistic, ENVE only needs to pursue one or two new product lines at a time, which is why the list above is intentionally short. The goal is to deploy resources effectively and maintain a slow, calculated expansion that compounds as the market adopts each new product. Once adoption and brand recognition in a new category are firmly established, ENVE can then reenter the R&D cycle for mountain bike frames and additional product lines beyond that.

A strategic acquisition that could make sense

One strategic acquisition stands out as particularly compelling: Ceramicspeed’s cycling division. Ceramicspeed is primarily a manufacturer of bearings used across a number of industrial sectors, but they have built a dedicated cycling arm focused on select componentry that ENVE does not prioritize, as well as drivetrain maintenance systems like their popular UFO Wax line. Ceramicspeed carries a reputation for best-in-class products that closely mirrors ENVE’s own, making it a logical addition if the finances make sense. Over time, a full rebrand under the ENVE umbrella would be a natural conclusion to that kind of acquisition.

How much of the market can ENVE capture?

With large brands struggling, the prospect of capturing market share is certainly exciting for ENVE, but how much of the pie can they realistically take? We know that major brands are pulling back significantly during these turbulent times, but it is worth asking how much of their trouble stems from their own strategic mistakes versus broader shifts in consumer behavior.

When we look at ENVE’s addressable market, high-end frames and components, the struggles of competitors likely lean more toward self-inflicted wounds than macro-driven demand collapse. ENVE’s frames start at around $4,100 and top out near $4,800. The consumers buying at that price point, and buying comparable bikes from competitors, tend to be wealthier individuals who are somewhat more insulated from macroeconomic pressure than the average consumer.

At that level, taking market share comes down to differentiation. Peter Abraham wrote a compelling piece on the state of the industry in 2025, and one of his central observations was how little differentiation exists between high-end bikes. With most carbon frame construction happening in Asia, bikes from different brands often share nearly identical manufacturing processes despite looking distinct on the surface. ENVE’s commitment to assembling frames in the US is a genuine and meaningful differentiator, particularly at a moment when competitor reputations may be softening.

Putting a precise number on how much market share ENVE can capture is difficult, but even single percentage points taken from brands the size of Trek, Specialized, and Scott will compound meaningfully over time. It positions ENVE to rise toward the top of a very short list of brands serious buyers consider when shopping at the high end of the market. It’s a hard task, but if ENVE sticks to their guns while taking some calculated risks, they have a unique opportunity to grow in the coming years.

A quick shoutout

On a different note, I want to take a moment to highlight something ENVE is doing to give back to the sport. Recently, in collaboration with Alexey Vermeulen, ENVE launched a gravel development team called the MOG Squad. It is a genuine investment in the future of the sport from a brand that has always done things one way: the right way.

And a quick note

If you are reading this and will be at the Sea Otter Classic next week in beautiful Monterey, California, drop me a line at builtonbikes@gmail.com. I would love to connect!

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Subscribe now

1. There need to be more development pathways for athletes, and most importantly, they need to be accessible and structured with a clear progression path

2. There needs to be a strong foundation of talent that makes development consistent and sustainable

3. When looking at potential growth opportunities for domestic cycling, women’s racing presents the best platform for US dominance and marketability

The second point traces back to my very first article, where I interviewed Natascha den Ouden, founder of the Women’s WorldTour team AG Insurance-Soudal and NXTG Racing. As Natascha put it, “we build from the top and break the foundation,” meaning all the money flows into the highest level of the sport and never trickles down to the developmental level where future stars are actually racing.

This results in an uneven playing field where lower-level riders are being pitted against the very best in the world, robbing them of the opportunity to learn the basic fundamentals of racing. It also means that the dwindling number of races that exclusively field lower-level teams receive no airtime, leading to more teams disappearing because they are no longer financially viable.

Taken together, the state of professional cycling, especially in nations like the US, is fragile. We will need a strong base of talent that can create a deeper roster of American riders capable of racing and winning at the highest levels of the sport.

While that is the big picture problem facing domestic cycling, there are many contributing factors that make it a difficult problem to solve. Factors like:

• Financial investment in the sport

• Clear pathways to professional contracts

• Strong collegiate programs

• A reduction in rider burnout

• A larger race ecosystem

I am the first to admit that I have put heavy emphasis on areas like collegiate cycling and financial investment, but there is one issue that is consistently overlooked. One that has already taken one of our biggest talents out of the sport and affects many more pros and developmental riders, often unnoticed by the public and even their own support systems. That issue is rider health, specifically as it relates to mental health, disordered eating, and nutritional habits.

It seems like a given that if we cannot maintain healthy athletes we will not produce enough professional riders, but the truth is that disordered eating and energy deficiency conditions have been common in cycling for decades. They have existed and conveniently ignored, not just in the US, but across every level of the sport globally.

To achieve sustainable talent pipelines, governing bodies, coaches, and teams at every level will need to implement practices that help identify and address rider health issues before they become severe. While this is a global problem, but it is especially difficult to combat in the US given cycling’s limited mainstream popularity and the resources that come with it.

For this edition of Built on Bikes, I sat down with former WorldTour rider Veronica Ewers to discuss how we can better address certain health conditions so we can safely and sustainably develop healthy riders as a nation.

About Veronica

Hailing from Idaho, Veronica is an athlete who found her way into cycling the same way many Americans do: by coincidence. Growing up, Veronica always thought of herself as an athlete, playing soccer all the way through the collegiate level. After graduating, she stopped playing soccer, moved to Seattle, and maintained her fitness through running and weight training.

It was not until a friend invited her on a local group ride that she seriously considered cycling as a sport for herself. Later Veronica met a couple who were creating their own cycling team, which she joined. From there, the team evolved into a domestic elite team, and it was there that she truly became a competitive cyclist.

“I really have them [the team] to thank for getting into the sport because they helped me get a better bike, they helped me get into specific training on the bike. They helped me ride in a group and learn what it’s like to pace line and be in a group. And then we would do a couple local races here and there before the team ended up becoming a domestic elite team.”

In 2021, Veronica competed at the US National Championship road race and placed third overall. The result caught the attention of professional teams and led to her signing with Tibco-Silicon Valley Bank, now known as EF Education-Oatly. She quickly established herself as one of the team’s strongest general classification riders, posting impressive results including:

• 2022: 9th overall at Tour de France Femmes, 5th overall at Tour de Romandie Féminin

• 2023: 4th overall at Giro Donne

She was one of America’s brightest talents, but the stellar performances masked an internal struggle that would follow Veronica throughout her professional career.

Developing and treating RED-S

Going back to her days of playing collegiate soccer, Veronica detailed how she developed disordered eating habits that would follow her into her professional cycling career. Veronica wrote a great piece on her Substack that details how these habits developed, how they became a full eating disorder, and how they ultimately led to a condition that forced her to put her professional cycling career on hold. That condition being: Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport, more commonly known as RED-S.

In short, RED-S is a condition that develops from a consistent energy imbalance leading to chronic fatigue. Both men and women can develop RED-S, but it affects each differently. Many factors can contribute to it, but repeated underfueling is one of the most common risk factors. *It is also important to note that developing RED-S does not automatically mean an athlete has an accompanying eating disorder.

Today, Veronica has made significant progress in her recovery and has become a prominent voice for raising awareness of disordered eating in cycling and the warning signs of RED-S in athletes. Her story is a powerful one that illustrates how limited developmental structures in the US leave athletes more vulnerable to unhealthy habits that can develop into serious medical conditions.

If we want to sustainably develop healthy athletes in the United States, we will need education, clear guidelines, and systems in place to spot the early warning signs and assist athletes in navigating intervention before they become crises.

*Here is a resource from Cornell Health that better outlines RED-S

What issues are we facing today?

Thanks to athletes like Veronica, there is growing awareness around mental health, disordered eating, and healthy physiological markers in the professional peloton. The WorldTour has by no means solved the problem, but it is heading in the right direction. That awareness and diligence, however, exists almost exclusively at the highest level of the sport. For the vast majority of cyclists, there are few safety nets and minimal resources available to help identify concerning patterns before they become serious.

This is not to say that governing bodies, teams, and coaches in the US do not care. It is simply the reality of competitive cycling in a resource-constrained environment. As I have written before, domestic teams and organizations like USA Cycling operate on extremely tight budgets while overseeing sprawling operations. They are doing the best they can with what is currently available.

The result is that each entity directs the majority of its efforts toward results and return on investment. Looking level by level, the story remains roughly the same:

• USA Cycling: A small budget stretched across sprawling operations, with performance judged primarily on the results of national teams

• Collegiate programs: Varsity teams are making ends meet to pay coaches and get athletes to races, while club teams are run entirely by students

• Domestic development teams: Members and staff often work multiple jobs, with the primary focus on getting to races and performing

• NICA and junior programs: Largely volunteer-run and focused first on teaching the fundamentals of bike racing

Whether the issue is creating clearer pathways to a professional career or addressing athlete health, a lack of organization and financial investment at the developmental level will remain a root cause of the challenges facing cycling in the United States.

Something important to understand

Before we discuss how we can advocate for effective change, it is important to understand just how difficult it can be to convince elite athletes that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. When reflecting on moments throughout her cycling career when concerned coaches or staff approached her, Veronica was candid about how unreceptive she often was:

“I had a really irrational piece in my brain that was very stubborn and even if somebody said, ‘Hey, it’s not okay that you’re not fueling well,’ my response was, ‘Okay,’ but not changing anything about it. So there was no one who was holding me accountable to changing my behaviors. I don’t know what sort of intervention would have been helpful for me at the time because nothing was going to change for me until I decided to make a change. It took me hitting pretty much rock bottom in order to actually decide to make those changes, which is really unfortunate, and I think that’s the case for a lot of people.”

This dynamic is important to understand because addressing health issues, particularly those with a mental health component, is incredibly complex. When we talk about paths forward, support structures will need to be built into any solution from the ground up. Veronica was clear that a consistent and patient support network is not optional, it is essential:

“When people are in it, they’re pretty in it. It’s a very hard place to get out of unless they decide. I think it’s really important for people who have someone in their lives who may be struggling just to constantly reassure them that they’re there. I don’t have the words for how grateful I am for the people that stayed with me through it. They educated themselves on how to kind of handle me without making things worse.”

Support networks are crucial, but so are the proverbial lifeguards who can be trained to spot warning signs even before an athlete’s personal support network does.

Coaches can be the first line of defense

Athlete health should be established as a priority from the very beginning of ones competitive career. Thinking back to Veronica’s entry into cycling, who was best positioned to first recognize the habits she had developed? For Veronica, and for many athletes, that person would have been her first coach.

Veronica was clear that there is no individual blame to assign here. Her experience reflects the strain on our development system as a whole and highlights just how important the athlete-coach relationship can be when it is functioning well. Thinking back to her first team in Seattle, Veronica noted that her coach did try to intervene in certain areas:

“One of the coaches from this team would call me out for not fueling properly on the bike and saying that that’s not okay, but that was kind of the extent of the concern in that way.”

For coaches in that position, that level of intervention is honestly all that can be expected within the current structure of domestic cycling in the US. On an amateur elite team, no one is being compensated enough to dig deeper into an athlete’s eating habits off the bike. The focus is on performance. Veronica understood that reality:

“I know it’s not necessarily someone else’s responsibility to take care of me when I’m this way. But in order to prevent what later happened with me and to intervene earlier, something does need to happen.”

So does that mean we have to accept that meaningful intervention is impossible until athletes reach the professional level, where coaches are full-time employees with the capacity to address every aspect of an athlete’s wellbeing? Absolutely not. This is precisely where institutional change can make a significant difference.

What does a step forward look like?

Addressing mental health, disordered eating, and energy deficiencies in cycling will require real investment from every organization that interfaces with athletes throughout their development. USA Cycling, amateur teams, and collegiate programs will all need to develop new resources and curricula for coaches and athletes alike.

Having access to Veronica was invaluable because she brings experience from every level of sport, having competed as a collegiate soccer player, an amateur domestic racer, and a WorldTour rider. We are both the first to admit that our ideas are just that, ideas, and that medical professionals will play a significant role in crafting better systems. But putting these ideas into the public conversation will hopefully spark meaningful dialogue and move the needle toward real change.

As Veronica and I discussed potential solutions, the conversation naturally gravitated toward areas where USA Cycling could have the greatest impact. As the governing body overseeing coaches, athletes, teams, and collegiate programs, they represent the most organized distribution system for new guidelines and programs. That also makes them another critical first touchpoint for athletes, as well as an advisory resource for the coaches who interact with those athletes daily.

*A note on professional teams: for any pro-level team or program, the UCI would ultimately be the governing body responsible for implementing significant changes at the pro level.

Where a governing body can help

Currently, if you visit USA Cycling’s website looking for resources on mental health and disordered eating, you will find two brief information pages: one covering member wellbeing resources and another with general information on disordered eating.

While these resources exist, the burden of responsibility falls entirely on individual athletes and coaches to seek them out. Even when they do, there are no clear guidelines to follow or structured frameworks to help build better safety nets at the team or program level. With that gap in mind, Veronica offered several suggestions that could establish more reliable and proactive support for both athletes and coaches through USA Cycling.

Support hotlines for coaches and staff

One of the less invasive resources that could make an immediate difference is a simple hotline that coaches and staff could contact when they notice concerning behavior in one of their athletes. Veronica laid out the vision clearly:

“Building a support team for staff and coaches as well as athletes is only a positive. Maybe having some kind of hotline — if a staff member sees something that they think is destructive or dangerous for one of their athletes, having the resource to contact someone anonymously. They don’t have to say names. ‘I’m working with this athlete, these are some of the red flags I’ve seen. Should I be concerned? If so, what are the next steps?’”

The anonymity component is important. It would give coaches the confidence to raise concerns without fear of spreading rumors or unfairly stigmatizing an athlete. A hotline like this would be a meaningful first step because it creates a guided pathway for addressing a problem rather than leaving coaches to navigate the situation alone. That said, it still places significant responsibility on coaches to recognize the warning signs in the first place.

Intervention frameworks

Veronica revealed that this is actually an area where she has already had conversations with USA Cycling. Establishing a standard framework that licensed coaches are required to learn and implement would be a significant step forward in both awareness and empowerment, giving coaches the tools to intervene when certain thresholds are met. As Veronica explained:

“If an athlete is training so much and you don’t have the education to know how to fuel properly, then you might fall into some really bad deficits that can lead to RED-S. And that is just purely educating that individual, which is a simple intervention a coach can make. But if you have the other side, that is intentional underfueling and intentional overtraining, that’s obviously a red flag people should be trained to spot and address.

I think there’s just so much education that can be done around what is appropriate to say, what’s not appropriate to say, and what sort of education we can give to coaches and staff on red flags when they may see something that is destructive behavior from one of their athletes.”

As such a framework is developed, there could be tiered levels of certification that coaches work toward, each building a deeper understanding of warning signs and intervention strategies. Over time, mandatory baseline education for athletes at the point of USA Cycling licensing could become a natural extension of that system.

Racing license suspension

On the surface this feels like a controversial step, but the reasoning behind it makes a great deal of sense given what we have learned from Veronica’s experience. Staging any kind of serious intervention with a high-performance athlete is incredibly difficult. If an athlete is completely focused on competing, the possibility of losing that ability might be the one thing that convinces them to take an issue seriously and, over time, accept that change was necessary.

“Maybe USA Cycling can intervene in the sense that they have the power to take away someone’s license. It seems like a really severe intervention. Obviously I think there could be like a three-strike kind of rule. If you’re at least making changes and you’re showing that you’re making changes, then the risk of having your license taken away is less severe, but if you’re at a point where you are severely undernourished and severely underweight, not being allowed to race, I think that could be a beneficial intervention.”

It is a fine line that would need to be walked carefully. Any license suspension would need to come with immediate access to a support network to help the athlete understand that they have not done anything wrong and are not being punished. This information would also need to remain completely confidential between the athlete, their coach, and USA Cycling so as not to affect the rider’s ability or willingness to compete in the future. Any license suspension should also come with protections ensuring that the athlete retains access to team resources in accordance with their existing contracts. In other words, a team should not be permitted to drop a rider solely on the basis of a health-related license suspension.

UCI physiological minimums

The next level of intervention extends beyond USA Cycling and addresses the issue at the professional level through the UCI. This approach is more scientific in nature and introduces a layer of accountability in the professional peloton where, as we know, ulterior motives can and do influence the decisions of both athletes and teams. Athletes are already tested for anti-doping protocols, so it should be simple to monitor other biological markers.

“I think being able to track bone density and ensure that women’s estrogen and progesterone levels are at a certain level, and in men’s testosterone is at a certain level. Having minimums be met in that sense could be beneficial to ensure health for all riders. I think people have spoken about having a body fat minimum, but that can be so different for different people. So I think having just basic functionality markers at a bare minimum would be helpful to ensure everyone maintains health.”

Extra resources for collegiate programs and beyond

As discussed in previous editions of Built on Bikes, USA Cycling is currently the sanctioning body for collegiate cycling, meaning all of the resources outlined above would also be available to collegiate programs and amateur teams across the United States.

With that said, we know that many cyclists come from other sports, and Veronica’s story is a clear example of that. Her underfueling began during her time as a collegiate soccer player, which means there was an opportunity for intervention long before she ever became a cyclist.

This extends beyond the reach of cycling specifically, but for collegiate endurance sports there is a real opportunity for governing bodies to collaborate on earlier detection systems and educate coaching staff across disciplines including cycling, triathlon, and rowing.

Through the combined efforts of several governing bodies, or even a direct partnership between the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee and the NCAA, more concrete guidelines could be developed to train collegiate coaching staff across all sports on recognizing and responding to disordered eating. It is a significant undertaking, but it addresses something that touches virtually every competitive sport. Veronica’s own experience makes the case clearly:

“My coach in college absolutely knew that there was something going on, but she definitely didn’t know how to go about intervening other than putting me on the bench and telling me that I seemed tired. That’s not necessarily a fault to her. She just didn’t have the education or the resources to deal with that.”

With collaboration from bodies like the NCAA, addressing the broader issue of disordered eating in collegiate sport becomes a much more achievable goal.

External influences to consider

So far we have outlined foundational systemic solutions that would help move the needle on preventable health issues affecting cyclists at every level. That should be the central takeaway from this article. But there are external factors that can influence an athlete’s mental health and eating habits independent of any institutional system, and that affect perfectly healthy athletes as well.

Veronica highlighted a significant outside influence that can heavily impact an athlete’s self-image: wearable training technology. Issuing sweeping guidelines on third party products would be nearly impossible for any governing body, but this is an area where targeted education for coaches and athletes can go a long way.

Cycling has always been one of the most data-obsessed sports, so it is easy to understand why athletes and coaches place significant importance on performance data coming from wearable technology.

Whether it is a Whoop recovery score, power numbers from intervals, or resting heart rate, cyclists will inevitably track and compare their metrics against their own baselines and their peers. Too often, those numbers become directly tied to an athlete’s sense of self-worth, which can become a catalyst for unhealthy obsession. It was something Veronica identified with personally:

“Once I started getting power data on my computer, I was so focused on the power. I wasn’t thinking about anything else. I wasn’t very good at understanding how I was feeling at a certain effort and I was too focused on the data.”

Veronica also shared stories of riders going into races convinced they would perform poorly simply because their sleep score was low the night before. It is a telling example of how access to certain data can actually hinder athletes who would never have struggled had they not seen the numbers at all. For this specific problem, coaches once again have the greatest potential for impact, as was the case for Veronica:

“I know coaches that are out there who will just say, ‘I don’t even want you to have power on your screen. Just go.’ And I think that’s really necessary to have. I had a phenomenal coach the last few years who I was incredibly transparent with. He knew what I had been struggling with, and he helped me try to improve while also trying to recover, which is a really contradictory world to live in.”

While this is a broad issue without a simple fix, Veronica offered one concrete suggestion for helping athletes find the right coach reliably:

“Maybe that’s something USA Cycling can do as well — vouch for certain coaches that are out there and available to ensure that athletes who go through USA Cycling are able to access quality coaches that will have the education and the resources to navigate that sort of thing.”

It’s time to get the ball rolling

Growing cycling in the United States requires a bias toward action, and that applies to every factor that contributes to reliable and sustainable development. If we are not producing healthy athletes as a nation, we will see fewer wins on the world stage and fewer careers that reach their full potential. Women’s cycling offers the best opportunity for the US to establish itself as a dominant force in the sport, but after speaking with Veronica, it is clear that we remain vulnerable to health issues that are far more common in women’s cycling than most people realize.

Siloed governance and fragmented decision making are only slowing us down. Major organizations need to come together to establish clear guidelines that empower healthier athlete-coach relationships at every level of the sport. Veronica brings lived experience and has outlined simple but meaningful ways to combat the health challenges facing cycling in the United States. We need to be receptive to that feedback and move with urgency before more athletes pay the price with their health and their careers.

What’s next for Veronica?

Since stepping away from professional cycling in November 2024, Veronica has returned to school to pursue her next chapter while continuing her recovery and maintaining a relationship with cycling as a sport she loves. Veronica shared a tremendous amount of valuable insight for this piece, and I wanted to give her the opportunity to highlight anything I may have missed and share what she has learned through her own journey.

Veronica reemphasized the importance of support systems and expressed deep gratitude for the people who have been with her throughout her own recovery. She also highlighted Project RED-S, an organization dedicated to educating and providing resources for athletes, coaches, and support networks dealing with the condition:

“Project RED-S is a really good organization that has a lot of resources, both based in the UK and Europe, and in the United States. That is the main organization that is providing resources for individuals, and it’s for people that are struggling with RED-S and also for people who are in the realm of somebody struggling with RED-S.”

A sincere thank you to Veronica for being so open and thoughtful on a topic that matters deeply to the future of this sport.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

The last two weeks have been a whirlwind. Between developing new stories for Built on Bikes, getting in shape for spring riding, and keeping up with my career, I also had the opportunity to travel to Austin, Texas for SXSW. I was there for a mix of business and cycling events, including a podcast recording, a private cycling and investment lunch, and a live panel featuring USA Cycling Chief of Staff Karl Pelletier, US Criterium National Champion Lucas Bourgoyne, and Kenetik CEO Devon Price.

It was an incredibly busy few days, but the trip left me with renewed confidence that cycling can and will grow significantly in the United States. Specifically, I came away thinking about two topics I have covered previously on this Substack:

• America needs more cycling capitals

• Growing cycling domestically will require investment from outside individuals and industries to fund the development that produces more talent capable of competing on the world stage

For me, these topics emerged once again as key factors in growing the sport here at home. In Austin, I watched cycling unite individuals from vastly different backgrounds and industries and facilitate genuinely thoughtful conversations about moving the sport forward. It showed that strangers can quickly connect through cycling culture and build something meaningful together, growing the sport in a way that feels uniquely American.

Before diving into the details, I want to acknowledge the incredible group of people that made all of this possible.

Hill Climbers

The driving force behind all of these events is Hill Climbers, a business network built around cycling. Founded in 2023, the Austin-based group is led by Sam Huntington and Stephen Cunningham. What started as a cycling podcast has since grown into a community of professionals united by a shared passion for the sport.

Hill Climbers’ goal is to promote and grow cycling by connecting people through networking events that bring professionals together, particularly those with influence in the cycling community. Since its founding, Hill Climbers has expanded from podcasting to regularly hosting investor events, live panel discussions that draw large crowds, and a weekly networking ride.

Sam was an early supporter of Built on Bikes, and we always intended to connect. As our schedules got busier, that conversation didn’t happen until a few months ago when Sam called to tell me about an investor lunch he was planning at SXSW.

Our shared passion was immediately obvious, and it made sense why he chose to reach out. Sam knew that I regularly write about the need for outside industries to invest in cycling in order to build deeper development pipelines in the United States. His vision for the event was to bring together venture investors, founders, and cycling industry professionals, including members of USA Cycling.

I will get into the details of the events shortly, but first I want to highlight the diversity of people who were in the room. On one end of the spectrum you had individuals whose full-time job is to grow cycling in the US. On the other, venture investors operating at the cutting edge of their industries, founders of brands with no prior connection to cycling, and even a few guests who weren’t cyclists at all. And somewhere in the middle, me, a passionate fan who happens to share his opinions on the internet.

For the majority of attendees, cycling was the common thread, and as I will describe, that created a uniquely dynamic environment that led to genuinely constructive conversations with real, actionable outcomes. I will circle back to Hill Climbers, but first let me provide some additional context on why the trip reaffirmed my hope for growing cycling domestically.

Austin proves cycling cities are possible

When I wrote about Bentonville transforming into a cycling town, it was clear that turning a smaller town into a cycling-forward community would be much easier than turning a major metropolitan city into a cycling mecca. Infrastructure costs less in smaller towns, and locals are more likely to get behind it given the direct economic benefits.

Going into Austin, I admittedly had preconceived notions that only a handful of cities have a noticeable cycling culture, mainly San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Boulder. While heavy cycling culture exists in each of those cities, it still doesn’t match the fervor and scale seen in Bentonville. Austin proved me wrong. It showed that a major city can cross the line from being a place where a lot of people ride bikes to becoming a city where cycling is genuinely known, celebrated, and fostered by the broader community.

The connection I made quickly was that in cities like San Francisco and New York, cycling culture exists but tends to come secondary to people’s careers. Group rides draw smaller turnouts due to less flexible work schedules and varying levels of interest in the community. In Austin, it felt like people’s personal and professional lives existed in greater harmony, and cycling was just as important to them as anything else.

That attitude toward cycling as more than a hobby has helped establish community institutions like the Breakfast Club, a monthly group ride that draws hundreds of cyclists and has been recognized as one of the largest group rides in the world. Visibility and community are everything when it comes to making a city truly cycling obsessed. Austin may not have the dedicated investment that Bentonville has, but the community alone has been enough to establish it as a genuine cycling city.

Investment and getting the right people in a room

It is common knowledge in the business world that transactions and deals are far easier to close when both parties share a common interest. The classic example is that a lot of business gets done on the golf course, and that is for a mainstream sport with a broad audience. So how does the same dynamic apply to cycling? It makes the connection even stronger.

When I write about the need to convince non-endemic sponsors and wealthy individuals to invest in the sport domestically, this is exactly the kind of dynamic I am talking about. People are far more likely to open their wallets for someone they trust and share a niche interest with. And if there is one thing you need to know about cyclists, it is that we will not shut up about bikes. We can talk about them all day.

Hill Climbers recognizes this and is growing its reach by bringing together people from unique backgrounds that fit together like puzzle pieces, each one a potential building block for something that could meaningfully grow the sport in the United States. I believe I saw proof of concept at the events I attended in Austin.

The lunch

The first event I attended was one I would also be participating in: a small lunch with investors, founders, and representatives from USA Cycling. There were even a few guests who were not cyclists, which made for a useful gauge of how well these ideas might resonate with a general, non-cycling audience.

Sam was gracious enough to give me the floor to share some remarks on what I have been writing about, mainly the case for private investment in domestic development pipelines. The conversation was strengthened considerably by the presence of USA Cycling Chief of Staff Karl Pelletier.

One area of focus was the opportunity to grow the sport through women’s cycling. For the non-cyclists in the room, attention sharpened when Karl told the story of Kristin Faulkner and Team USA winning gold at the Paris Olympics. In short, USA Cycling used AI and complex modeling to inform race strategy, ultimately determining that Kristin had a statistically significant chance of winning gold in the road race. They did the math, and it paid off.

The story landed immediately with a room full of venture investors. Beyond the technical appeal, it doubled as a classic underdog story with the kind of patriotism that only Olympic sport can produce.

No commitments were made during the lunch, but that was never the point. By facilitating that conversation, Hill Climbers planted the seed that cycling can be genuinely exciting and helped educate an important audience on why investment in the sport matters. It felt like proof of concept to me: that we can absolutely convey the importance of development and spread the vision of a more competitive cycling scene in the United States.

The live panel

As mentioned earlier, Hill Climbers also hosted a live panel podcast featuring Karl, Devon, and Lucas. This is not a new format for Hill Climbers, as they have produced multiple live panel events that consistently draw large audiences. Friday night was no exception. On what could have easily been a quiet evening, Sam and his team drew a packed crowd eager to listen and engage in conversation about the state of cycling in the United States.

The panel could not have represented more different backgrounds, but once again, a shared passion for cycling and endurance sport tied everything together in a way that felt completely natural. Every panelist brought something distinct to the discussion, and the audience could relate to and draw insight from each of them. Beyond the formal discussion itself, the time before and after the panel was filled with organic networking that felt effortless rather than forced.

I am naturally a somewhat shy person, but the room was incredibly welcoming and produced the easiest networking environment I have ever been a part of. Even guests who could not directly contribute to specific initiatives often knew someone who could, and they were genuinely happy to make the connection.

If Hill Climbers and the broader cycling community keep the momentum going with events like these, I believe we will achieve real progress in US cycling development by consistently connecting the right people and facilitating the right conversations.

What Hill Climbers is proving

The United States is often written off in the cycling world as a nation with a stagnating racing scene and weak development pipelines, but maybe that is actually our strength. In sports, nothing seems to motivate this country more than being overlooked and counted out. As USA Cycling and Kristin Faulkner have shown, cycling has no shortage of underdog stories capable of capturing the attention of American audiences. It is just a matter of telling them well and inspiring the right people to invest in future ones.

I have said it before, but the way we do that is by being scrappy and finding creative ways to move the sport forward. Hill Climbers is providing the spaces and conversations to make that happen. Unlike European nations where cycling development is government funded and centrally organized, the United States can reach and surpass their level of talent by piecing together an unconventional coalition of everyday individuals, cycling experts, investors, and passionate fans to build a pathway forward.

When the US wins big, the story will be incredible. We will be able to look back and say we made it possible by uniting the domestic cycling community and leveraging the talent and connections of thousands of passionate individuals. Instead of USA Cycling working in relative isolation, it will be a story about how organizations like Hill Climbers united a community to drive real change. The patriotism that process evokes will be unlike anything produced by any other national sports story.

Cycling in the United States has a fighting spirit, and with continued community building that connects industry professionals with influential people, it will have a real fighting chance at hitting the mainstream.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

We connected earlier this week to discuss some of the topics I covered in my M&A article as well as broader cycling industry trends. One question I asked them was whether they were seeing anything in the cycling sector related to live events. Having previously written about how race series like the Life Time Grand Prix might position for a future acquisition, I wanted to pressure test that theory with someone who operates at the deal level.

While they acknowledged that race series are growing in popularity, they pointed to cycling tourism as a particularly promising business model within live events. Cycling touring companies are well positioned to benefit from the growing consumer demand to center travel around outdoor activities, a trend closely tied to the rise of ecotourism globally.

As someone who regularly dives deep into the cycling industry, cycling tourism is a segment I have mostly overlooked. I know relatively few companies that offer this kind of bike-centric travel experience. Beyond businesses that rent bikes to explore a city, the touring companies I am most familiar with are focused on providing bike tours in Europe, exploring the famous roads and mountain passes featured in grand tours like the Tour de France.

These models largely require consumers to do their own research on providers in a specific region, and most are centered around road riding. That feels more like infrastructure tourism than ecotourism. Cycling tourism is clearly growing, but is there a way to expand its benefits to more cycling businesses, get more people out on bikes, and more directly capitalize on the rise of ecotourism?

How I combine cycling and vacation

As someone who is no stranger to ecotourism or cycling in new locations, this immediately made me think about how I personally approach bike touring. The United States is home to premiere gravel racing events, and that is exactly how I combine the sport I love with exploring new natural areas. I am far from alone in this. Many cyclists have started using gravel races as an excuse to travel to new and interesting locations. Beyond having a goal tied to their travels and a built-in community to connect with, most will extend their stay at a race location to explore the surrounding area.

This got me thinking about the opportunities that could open new revenue streams for existing businesses looking to capitalize on the continued rise of ecotourism. But before diving in, let’s take a quick look at the current landscape of cycling tourism.

A largely unchanged industry with massive potential

As I mentioned, cycling tourism has historically been a business model centered around road cycling that exists and thrives in Europe. But is there massive potential to expand across continents and cycling disciplines?

To better understand the current landscape, I came across a telling report on the global bike touring industry put together by the Adventure Travel Trade Association, CycleSummit, the European Cyclists’ Federation, and EuroVelo. Compiled in 2024, the report surveyed 245 bike touring operators, roughly 70% of whom are based in Europe, and gauged market growth possibilities across disciplines and geographies. Here are the key insights I took away.

Europe dominates the market

• The top three touring markets, in order, are: Italy, France, and Germany

The U.S. has a large consumer base

• The USA is the single largest source market globally, with 29% of operators reporting the majority of their clients come from the US

• For non-European operators specifically, 51% of clients come from the US

• Despite this, the US is not among the top cycling tour destinations, suggesting significant untapped domestic opportunity

Discipline breakdown

• Road bikes dominate in Europe at 63% of tours

• Mountain biking is the biggest discipline outside Europe at 34%

• Gravel is still small but growing, representing 7% of non-European tours and 2% in Europe

• Gravel cycling identified as a key emerging trend by 15% of operators

Accessibility is growing

• 64% of operators report at least 25% of their clients now use e-bikes

• 33% of operators already have more than 50% of clients on e-bikes

• E-bike adoption is significantly higher in Europe at 72% versus 46% outside Europe

• E-bikes are identified as the single biggest trend in cycling tourism by 51% of operators

Challenges

• Marketing to new customers is the second biggest challenge at 50%

• Safety and road infrastructure are significant concerns for itinerary planning

According to operators in the industry, business is growing and markets are expanding, but there is still a lot of ground to make up after years of historic stagnation. What stood out to me most were the challenges listed in the report. To me, they scream opportunity for some very specific players in the market.

A modern alternative

The market is telling us that there is an emerging appetite for off-road touring, and I believe there are already big players providing this experience, just not beyond a single day. As I mentioned, gravel racing has become a go-to way for cyclists to travel to unique destinations and center a trip around the bike. Some standalone races embrace this destination theme, but two series have scaled it into a full identity.

The Gravel Earth Series and the GRVL event series both center their brands around destination gravel events. The Gravel Earth Series consists of eleven standalone races held in some of the most unique places on earth, including Maasai Mara in Kenya and the Oregon Trail. The GRVL event series consists of three races located in Colorado, Finland, and Australia.

Both series embrace ecotourism to the fullest while making the experience unforgettable through secondary events and amenities for participants. And both have a real opportunity to profit from the challenges currently facing the bike touring industry.

With marketing and safety being the primary challenges facing bike touring operators, both series have already addressed these problems. The Gravel Earth Series and GRVL have built some of the most recognizable brands in the space, earning a reputation for putting on world class events in destinations that cyclists might not otherwise think to visit. The problem is that they are leaving significant revenue opportunities on the table, ones that would benefit organizers and bring more stability to their overall business model.

Simply put, both series and their individual race organizers should consider launching subsidiary businesses that function as bike touring companies, supplementing the revenue earned from their main race events.

There is no reinventing the wheel here. Both series would work with their individual race organizers to gauge capacity and interest in launching a touring business alongside their existing events. Unlike someone starting a touring company from scratch, these ventures would have the full backing and brand recognition of well-known race series already famous for putting on outstanding events. There are risks associated with any new business model, and the approach would look different between the two series, but there is a clear gap in the market that their efforts could fill.

For the remainder of this piece, I will be running an abbreviated SWOT analysis, covering the strengths and weaknesses of both race series and the threats and opportunities associated with expanding their business models to include a bike touring operation.

*The GRVL event series does advertise GRVL Travel, which is the exact business model that I am pitching here. Transparently, I never knew about this venture and after talking with sources familiar with the series’ operations, it seems like this product is sporadically offered and not consistent year to year.

Both series have strengths and weaknesses

While both series have strong branding and operating structures for gravel racing, certain attributes will help and hurt their ability to launch secondary bike touring businesses.

Gravel Earth Strengths

• Event location diversity will allow the series to tackle several geographic markets and offer a network of experiences operated by locals at each destination.

• Strong brand recognition with broad reach. Gravel Earth Series is known for marquee stage races like Oregon Trail and Migration Gravel, which are essentially fully catered bike tours with a racing component. Consumers can reasonably expect that any bike tour organized through Gravel Earth Series partners will be a premium experience.

• Decentralized organizational structure. While the series oversees high level strategy, race logistics remain with individual organizers. Gravel Earth essentially functions as a marketing platform, collecting commission from organizers who pay to be included in the series. The same model would translate naturally to a bike touring business.

Gravel Earth Weaknesses

• The series is known for physically demanding races across a wide range of road and off-road surfaces. This could deter more casual cyclists who might assume tour routes would be equally as challenging.

• The highly managed race experience means individual organizers carry significant logistics costs, tying up capital that could otherwise be directed toward launching a touring business.

GRVL Strengths

• GRVL events are famously inclusive. Courses offer distances for every skill level and the atmosphere is curated around the average rider, with activations and community events built into race week.

• GRVL events have a strong reputation among both racers and amateurs for exceptional event execution.

• Their events are approachable to new cyclists and can be as performance oriented as an individual desires.

GRVL Weaknesses

• With only three races on the calendar, opportunities to build a touring business around existing organizers with proven track records are limited.

The opportunities and threats presented by a new business model

Opportunities

When thinking purely about the business model, adding bike touring to an existing race series presents a few significant opportunities to grow revenue.

A touring business would extend the earning window and operating season for organizers. Rather than relying on a handful of days per year to generate revenue, brands could expand that timeframe to weeks or even months.

Customer bases would grow beyond riders who are primarily interested in racing. This expansion would reach across age groups, genders, and ability levels, opening the door to a much broader audience.

With the right staff in place to run the touring operation day to day, this could become a largely self-sustaining revenue stream that reports up to existing race organizers without disrupting the core business.

Threats

In many ways, the threats associated with launching a new business model mirror the opportunities that come with it.

Cannibalization is a real consideration. Once consumers are presented with more options, it becomes possible that fewer people sign up for the main race events associated with each series, ultimately hurting both business models in the long run.

If sufficient staff cannot be hired to run the touring operation, the added complexity could begin to affect the primary business, leading to inefficient use of resources and improper scaling.

What it could look like in practice

Gravel Earth

To execute effectively, Gravel Earth will need to lean into their strengths while also combating preconceived notions about their brand. The rollout of a touring business would be gradual, starting with traditional markets in Europe to build operational experience before expanding into markets like Africa. With four races in Spain and one in Italy, the series has a strong foundation in the European market, which also has an underdeveloped off-road touring scene.

If they can pull market share away from traditional touring companies without cannibalizing their core business, it would be a strong signal that the expansion is viable. Gravel Earth would also need to reposition their image in the touring space as a brand that can support shorter, less demanding experiences at a more accessible price point.

Once initial success is proven, expanding into high growth markets like Africa, New Zealand, and Eastern Europe would be the natural next step. If they scale as quickly as their race series has, they would have a real shot at becoming a market leader in off-road touring.

GRVL

Given that the GRVL event series has already experimented with travel experiences in the past, I see two paths forward. Either the brand determines that a touring business is not a viable model for them, in which case they should double down on race events and expand their calendar, or they fully commit and launch three touring operations that correspond to each event in the series.

If the latter is the right path, a measured approach could serve them well, much like it would for Gravel Earth Series. With three races on the calendar, each organizer should consider offering a limited number of touring experiences in the early years to refine operations before scaling. This creates room for experimentation and iteration, minimizing cannibalization while ensuring the brand maintains its reputation for best in class event execution.

A space to watch

Barring negative macroeconomic trends and the impacts of climate change, ecotourism will continue to rise, and with it, the popularity of exploring outdoor spaces on two wheels. Since its inception, the bike touring industry has been predominantly focused on road riding in European markets, but the data points to a growing demand for off-road options in emerging markets around the world.

Breaking into one of these markets as a brand new touring company would be difficult without an established name behind the business to earn consumer trust. For these reasons, popular off-road race series are uniquely positioned to expand their earning potential with a business model that already plays to their existing strengths. If they can manage cannibalization risks and scale efficiently, race series have a real opportunity to evolve into true adventure platforms.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Compared to other industries, cycling and endurance sports haven’t embraced AI to the same extent. It makes sense. Endurance sports are focused on humans using their bodies to compete, and there is only so much AI can do for an athlete when they are actively racing.

The question isn’t if endurance sport will catch up to other industries in AI adoption, but when. As I thought about this, a more interesting question came to mind: what AI use case will dominate the endurance market and have the most impact on cycling?

As it currently stands, that use case is applications and platforms that help athletes and everyday hobbyists maximize performance through coaching, nutrition, and fitness tracking. No real surprise there, since we are already seeing major companies like Strava, Whoop, and Oura tackling this space and generating billions of dollars in revenue.

The problem is that those products only tackle one part of the equation. The same is true for platforms like TrainingPeaks and Join Cycling, which each address one specific use case. These platforms can integrate and communicate with each other, but that is asking a lot of the general market. People new to training won’t know about all of these platforms and will be looking for a one-size-fits-all solution that optimizes their performance and training in one place.

This week we’ll take a deep dive into AI in the endurance performance space. We are already seeing an influx of companies entering the market, but they remain siloed into their own subsections. The space will become increasingly competitive as new companies try to become the all-in-one solution while others look to merge and consolidate, but what will be the winning formula?

The current performance AI landscape

As I mentioned, cycling and endurance sports are already familiar with AI. Top WorldTour teams are using custom AI solutions that cover every aspect of performance, but for the privateer athlete and everyday hobbyist, the market remains fragmented into separate category segments.

Wearables and Tracking: Companies like Garmin, Whoop, and Oura collect biometric data and track trends in sleep, heart rate, fatigue, and more. These products have reached the mass market and have already educated the public on what is possible when it comes to optimizing health and fitness.

Training and Coaching: These two functions could each be their own subcategory, but products that specialize in one often have features that encompass the other. TrainingPeaks, for example, allows coaches and athletes to develop a training strategy while also offering virtual training where athletes can connect their indoor trainer to the app. AI is then gaining insights from actual riding data to inform better coaching. Other examples in this space include Strava, AI Endurance, and Join Cycling.

Nutrition: The key distinction for nutrition apps is that the best ones don’t just track daily meals and macros, they also optimize race and training nutrition specifically. Fuelin is a strong example, helping athletes dial in race day fueling while tracking their everyday dietary habits.

Many of these platforms already integrate with each other, but the core issue remains: new hobbyists won’t know all of these platforms exist. And even when they do, purchasing multiple subscriptions* at $100 or more each and integrating them all can feel overwhelming. You already know where I am going with this, but there is more nuance to the issue than simply picking three platforms and merging them into one service.

*The annual cost of maintaining subscriptions to Strava, TrainingPeaks, Whoop, Zwift, and Fuelin totals $735.

What gives a product the most potential to benefit from AI?

Before we get to the most likely scenario for an all-in-one AI endurance solution, I think there are some pieces of the equation that most people are missing. It cannot be overstated how a single attribute can take an AI product from good to transformative. To identify these attributes, it helps to understand the features that make an AI solution truly impactful, not just in sport but across most industries:

• Creating equal impact for consumers and professionals

• The ability to automate a process from start to finish while constantly learning, streamlining, and optimizing

• Interoperability with other platforms through the use of an MCP*

• Ethically collecting large amounts of user data for enhanced context and learning

• Bridging the gap between the digital and physical world

It seems like our endurance-focused AI platforms already do all of these things, right? Mostly, but I have my doubts about how much actionable user data exists on more specialized applications compared to giants like Strava, Whoop, and Oura. That is piece one: a winning solution will need access to massive amounts of user performance data to develop more pointed analysis and actionable insights for athletes.

The second piece relates to bridging the gap between the digital and physical world. Wait, isn’t that the whole point of these applications? Yes, but that is not what I am referring to. These platforms have already gained popularity by bridging that gap, but there is another gap that remains largely unaddressed, and it comes down to nutrition.

*MCP stands for Model Context Protocol. Essentially, it allows an AI tool to connect with another application, learn from the data on that app, and then let you use the AI tool to work with that data.

Nutrition products are a key component in an all inclusive solution

Nutrition can benefit from all five attributes we just mentioned, but no application is currently bridging the gap between the athlete and actual performance nutrition products. Apps like Fuelin are checking most of the boxes, but can leave a lot of ambiguity in their nutrition plans. For anyone who isn’t a professional athlete, the guidelines can quickly become hard to follow.

Take a beginner who is new to performance training. Their nutrition app suggests consuming 60 grams of carbs per hour, 0.5 liters of water at a certain sodium concentration, and 30 milligrams of caffeine in hour two of their workout. How does a complete beginner even begin to decipher and implement a plan like that?

Assuming they have at least a basic understanding that endurance athletes use gels and performance nutrition products, the number of products to choose from is overwhelming. Each brand uses its own buzzwords, formulas, and dosing suggestions. On top of that, every person has a different gut tolerance, and dialing in nutrition requires a lot of testing and product mixing to get right. Someone might visit their local sports store or browse The Feed online and buy certain products in bulk, only to discover those products cause gut distress and do more harm than good.

For these reasons, a truly comprehensive AI performance solution will need a nutrition component that can guide athletes through product offerings and ideally automate their purchasing and testing, bridging the digital and physical world.

To meet the requirements of an all-in-one solution, nutrition AI products will need to do the following:

Meet athletes where they are at: Solutions need plans that serve both the seasoned professional and the beginner hobbyist. If a pro already knows what products work for them, the solution should focus on race and training specific nutrition requirements and ask for more detailed user input. If someone is new to the sport, the AI should take a holistic approach, suggesting products and nutrition plans while helping the athlete test different combinations. The dialogue between athletes and AI shouldn’t get lost in the finest details, but instead focus on building a solid foundation of understanding and performance implementation.

Continuously interact with the latest science: Current offerings employ staff dietitians and nutrition experts, which is great, but it is unclear whether their AI is being fed the latest peer-reviewed research on nutrition and performance. The ideal solution should constantly monitor the most relevant and accurate science, staying on top of developments that a human researcher might miss.

Connect to a marketplace: Integrating with a marketplace like The Feed is essential. The goal is to reduce the work an athlete has to do by helping them buy and test products suited to their preferences, rather than sending them to scroll through hundreds of options at a retailer. In an ideal world, the nutrition AI takes in athlete feedback on specific products and uses that to inform future buying decisions, making it a truly hands-off experience for the consumer.

So, what does the dream AI performance product look like?

The path forward is straightforward. All performance data and guidance needs to live under one platform and connect to third party retailers that provide the physical products that enhance an athlete’s performance. The AI also needs to be well trained on ethically sourced user data and peer-reviewed research that reflects the best performance practices.

Thinking as a cyclist, my dream platform would have the following functionality:

• Workout planning, tracking, and reporting, similar to TrainingPeaks

• The ability to create virtual workouts for indoor training systems, like Zwift or TrainingPeaks Virtual

• Fueling coaching, tracking, and experimentation on and off the bike, like Fuelin

• Social sharing capabilities, like Strava

• A reasonable yearly subscription

• Preferred partnerships with nutrition suppliers that can automate orders based on AI-assisted nutrition plans

• Partnerships with retailers that can recommend the best third party wearables based on an athlete’s preferences and goals (Garmin, Whoop, Hdrop, etc.)

• Personalization that draws on data from professional athletes to inform training for more dedicated amateurs

This is the starting point for a truly all-encompassing solution that could benefit a professional or a complete beginner training for their first triathlon, marathon, or gravel race. From that base, the possibilities for further capabilities get really interesting.

Imagine the platform partnering with a professional cycling team like Visma-Lease a Bike and gathering data from their riders’ training plans. You could ask the AI to analyze your training data and identify which rider you most closely align with. Say it determines your training and strengths most closely resemble Sepp Kuss. From there, your training gradually shifts to reflect your needs while nudging you toward Sepp’s rider profile. Or imagine a complete beginner watching Wout van Aert race and deciding that is their sign to start cycling. They could begin training and optimizing toward Wout’s rider type from day one.

There is an obvious slippery slope here, which is why it is important for the AI to have enough context to guide people toward the healthiest and most realistic path. If a 6’4”, 230 pound rider says they want to train like Jonas Vingegaard, there should be guardrails that flag that as a difficult and potentially unhealthy goal. Complete context is everything for an AI application, and products like these need to be developed with extreme caution and diligence.

These platforms will be a massive unlock for overlooked communities

One of the most meaningful benefits of this type of platform would be improved access to informed coaching guidance for athletes with specific physical considerations. Women are often completely overlooked in conventional training platforms and even in broader training discussions. Menstrual cycles and pregnancy are significant factors in structuring training goals, plans, and nutrition that are both effective and, most importantly, healthy.

The ideal solution would be able to track cycles and optimize training for every phase of them. For athletes who are pregnant and hoping to maintain fitness, reliable guidance can be incredibly hard to find, and a platform like this could ease that burden significantly. Post-pregnancy recovery presents an even greater challenge, as athletes need to be mindful of how certain nutrition practices and training loads affect them while breastfeeding.

An almost entirely overlooked situation is maintaining effective and healthy training for athletes who are in the process of transitioning or have recently done so. Having the context to guide an athlete through that process would be a significant unlock for trans athletes and could meaningfully contribute to greater representation in the sport.

As already noted, the AI will need to be continuously and rigorously evaluated to ensure it is providing healthy guidelines and consistently prompting athletes to seek medical advice before implementing certain practices.

Ultimately, a truly inclusive solution will broaden access to performance and lead to greater representation at every level of the sport.

Back to business, how do we get there?

Assuming the industry recognizes the need for an all-in-one solution that eliminates multiple subscriptions, how will the development of such a platform unfold? In my eyes, there are really only two possibilities.

1. An existing platform scales rapidly and gains the resources to outbuild competitors and develop comprehensive functionality

2. A consolidation event through M&A sees popular solutions fall under the same banner, integrating seamlessly to create a new product under unified branding

I believe the latter would be the best case scenario for consumers given the amount of data and infrastructure already available, but with AI companies raising money at a staggering pace, either situation is possible and a mix of both is most likely.

On the M&A route, there are several possibilities. A private equity firm or holding company could acquire companies like TrainingPeaks, Fuelin, and The Feed and initiate a merger to combine them and begin building out a comprehensive solution. Buying two or three companies at once might seem aggressive, but in the world of private equity, companies like these sit on the more affordable end of the acquisition spectrum.

We could also see strategic acquisitions, and there is one scenario that stands out as particularly high risk, high reward. In the context of this piece, the only companies in the space that are profitable enough to acquire others are Strava, Whoop, or Oura. Any of them could make a play at acquiring some combination of the companies mentioned above and build a one-size-fits-all solution under a well known brand name.

Say Strava acquires TrainingPeaks, The Feed, and Fuelin over a relatively short period of time. All three continue operating their independent businesses, but select resources are pulled from each to begin developing a new flagship subscription product. That product is an all-in-one AI assisted training platform with retail integration, priced at a fraction of what four separate subscriptions would cost.

What about wearables? Simple: partner with or recommend non-subscription biometric trackers like Garmin. If executed well and quickly enough, Strava is suddenly competing at the level of Whoop and Oura.

Time will tell

We see bold mergers and acquisitions happen across industries all the time, so a scenario like this is certainly not out of the question. AI is here whether we like it or not, and with endurance sports continuing to grow in popularity, consumers will eventually demand a comprehensive, all-in-one performance solution. The result will be more athletes and more talented athletes turning pro as a result. If it all comes together, this is certainly a case of AI for good.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

In that piece, I also showcased an industry report indicating that brand and storytelling will be a key differentiating factor for companies moving forward. Smaller brands have known this for a while, and for investors, finding strong stories will be a key factor in their diligence process.

Storytelling has been a major theme since I began writing for Built on Bikes. While analyzing why the Netflix series Tour de France: Unchained fell short, I highlighted its lack of consistent storytelling throughout a WorldTour season, lackluster presentation of grit, and minimal focus on cycling culture. If a brand or documentary could accurately portray those characteristics of cycling, it would be far more likely to find success in the United States and, most importantly, grow the sport domestically.

This week, I had the opportunity to chat with two founders who sit at the intersection of these topics. They are building a scalable business and creating a brand built on storytelling that resonates far beyond diehard cycling fans. Their product is a new race format that is easily digestible and characterized by constant action, much like traditionally popular sports such as basketball and hockey.

For this edition of Built on Bikes, I interviewed James and Clare Grady, co-founders of Formula Fixed, a new professional race series addressing the historical challenge of making cycling entertaining and accessible to mainstream audiences. Together, we dive into their business model, how they are building a strong brand through storytelling, and the future opportunities ahead for Formula Fixed. We also zoom out to discuss how Formula Fixed is benefiting fans, athletes, and the sport of cycling as a whole.

What is Formula Fixed?

Formula Fixed was founded in 2023 by James and Clare Grady. Before Formula Fixed, the pair were running Mission Crit, a fixed-gear bike race in San Francisco. Mission Crit was born in 2014 as an underground race held in a parking lot, but over time became a marquee cycling event that amassed over 6,000 spectators and 300 competing athletes.

While Mission Crit was extremely popular, James and Clare noticed there might be a better way to present fixed-gear racing that could draw in even more fans and athletes. The traditional race format required significant planning, including road closures, media coverage that captures the full race course, and finding ways to help fans enjoy and understand the race while only being able to view one section of it at a time. James summed up the problem well:

“We basically had to build an entire race course every single time we were putting on an event, and we observed that maybe it’s harder for people to get into the story of a race if they can’t see the whole race the whole time.”

Formula Fixed addresses those problems by organizing short track fixed-gear races that are fast-paced, dynamic, and repeatable. The series defines its event style around four core attributes:

• A heat format where multiple 5-minute races qualify athletes into the final

• Roughly 400-meter closed-loop tracks that are highly technical

• Fixed-gear, brakeless track bikes that produce dynamic racing, bold moves, and physical competition

• Events designed for broadcast clarity and a comprehensive fan experience

What is being fixed?

Beyond addressing the challenges that James and Clare experienced with Mission Crit, Formula Fixed is built to address a larger issue, the historic barrier to entry for fans in the United States. I’ve talked about this in length while analyzing why cycling media has not been able to attract a significant amount of new fans, but Clare outlined the challenge clearly:

“Traditional cycling can be hard to follow. The races are long, the storylines are fragmented, and the fan experience just isn’t really built for modern audiences. We created Formula Fixed to be the cycling property that’s easy to understand, easy to watch, and really built around athletes as characters. It’s a format first, story first, race series designed to make cycling compelling in real time, not just impressive in hindsight.

At its core, Formula Fixed is solving for traditional cycling’s complex race formats, costly production requirements, limited in-person viewership, and a cultural disconnect that has historically deterred younger and more diverse audiences.

Where is Formula Fixed at today?

Since launching in 2023, Formula Fixed has grown into a formidable event platform. This year will also mark the launch of a pro series featuring a roster of 48 athletes split between men’s and women’s fields. Formula Fixed events are set to be multi-day experiences, with three short-track races across one week and projected attendance of 2,400 spectators per event.

James and Clare aren’t building this alone either. They have assembled a small but experienced team of sports media professionals, including Emmy-nominated content creators and brand professionals with backgrounds at properties like Wasserman, X Games, the Olympics, and Nike.

The foundation has clearly been laid, but what will make Formula Fixed succeed and make it an enticing brand for sponsors and investors alike?

Fan engagement is a formula for success

We’ve seen cycling try to engage larger, mainstream audiences over the last few years. Netflix France released three seasons of their documentary series, Tour de France: Unchained, and gravel race series like the Life Time Grand Prix and Gravel Earth Series have led the charge for adventure ready consumers. TDF: Unchained proved to be underwhelming and not engaging for mainstream audiences while gravel still relies on participation to bring in new fans.

Gravel is certainly having an impact in the United States by getting more people on bikes, but no mainstream audience will be watching a five hour livestream that has a rotating set of characters and little storytelling in between. With engagement being a rare commodity in domestic cycling, Formula Fixed is framing it as the main issue it’s trying to solve.

As I see it, Formula Fixed attacks live and virtual fan engagement on four fronts:

• Optimizing for repeatability and scalability

• Utilizing fixed-gear culture to make attending live events enticing to fans

• Prioritizing story to create a brand that will engage fans beyond events

• Producing media and coverage that is palatable and easy to consume virtually

Repeatability & Scalability

As they learned with Mission Crit, James and Clare know that having an event format that is easily repeatable and scalable across geographies will be crucial to growing Formula Fixed. By implementing a consistent race format, they are positioning the business to benefit from economies of scale. As production becomes more efficient, the costs associated with each event will stabilize while revenues from ticket sales and sponsorships grow.

When describing the challenges of traditional race formats, Clare highlighted unit economics as a key factor affecting growth:

“The unit economics of races as they currently exist are hard. Because you have to create the event infrastructure every single time.”

James shared the thinking behind the Formula Fixed format:

“We thought we might be able to put on events at scale more easily if we have an economy of scale and we’re not building a race course on city streets every single time.”

If Formula Fixed is able to scale over the coming years with an established race series that delivers significant value to sponsors and investors, the long-term ambitions become really exciting. James and James have made no secret of where they want to take it:

“Long term, we do want to put team based events in stadiums, specifically fixed gear criterions in stadiums.” - James

“I also have this dream of doing cyclocross in a stadium, in the dead of winter, where it’s all snowy, and you’ve just got 50,000 people yelling.” - James

We’ve seen the format succeed in cycling with one-off events like the Little 500, and we’ve certainly seen commercial success from similar sports like motocross. If James and Clare continue to grow Formula Fixed sustainably, they will have the chance to put those long-term aspirations to the test.

Culture is the entry point

Formula Fixed is merging these two sides of fixie culture, and it’s working. On the race course, the strength and ability of the cyclists is on full display, and the racing itself is as chaotic as a bike messenger weaving through traffic in a major city. For the audience, it’s a party-like atmosphere. Drinks are flowing, vibes are high, and whether you’re a diehard cycling fan or a first-timer, you will quickly fit in and have a blast.

That loose, welcoming nature of fixie culture is opening doors for new fans and giving Formula Fixed a marketability that doesn’t exist in other cycling formats. As James put it:

“We regularly hear from people who come to the live events who are not cycling fans whatsoever. And they’re just blown away, and they’re like, ‘Is all cycling like this? I’ve been missing out.’”

The bikes themselves also act as an entry point for new fans and athletes alike. Rather than racing bikes that cost upwards of $10,000, top athletes can compete on stripped-down equipment that could be bought for a fraction of the price. Clare outlined the appeal:

“It’s got this cool factor. It might be tied to the fact that the bikes are kind of sexy. They’re just a machine that you connect to your body to make yourself go faster. Part of that is access, because the fixed gear bike is so much less expensive to get started on.

The reason why we’re doing fixed-gear is because we’ve seen from the start, the culture is as important as the sport itself.”

Telling stories is a requirement

I’ve touched on this point often since starting Built on Bikes, but James and Clare clearly understand the importance of good storytelling and consider it an integral piece of their overall strategy. Formula Fixed is putting all the pieces together to create what could become the strongest media engine in domestic cycling.

They have already assembled a strong team of brand professionals and storytellers, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for compelling content through a 48-athlete race series that will give them an abundant source of athlete stories that are easy for fans to understand and connect with. Clare made a comparison that put the storytelling style of Formula Fixed into perspective:

“An early comparison that I used was professional wrestling. What do they do really well? They tell stories. They build characters, and they build the world. That’s what we want. Because we’re a centralized league and we’ve got a recurring cast and a consistent format, the continuity is the product.“

The audience growth engine

Traditional cycling formats have always struggled to rapidly grow audiences. Disciplines like mountain biking and cyclocross get little airtime in the United States, and even the Tour de France struggles to capture mainstream attention. Long, tactically complex races aren’t built for social media or live viewing. Formula Fixed was designed to be the opposite: short, fast, and made for social media.

Scaling Formula Fixed will only happen when more fans show up to events, post about them on social media, and eventually draw in remote viewers. To grow their audience, Formula Fixed takes a three-tiered approach to content that drives higher monetization over time:

• Always-on content: daily short-form posts and highlights that drive consistent engagement

• Amplifying race moments: action clips that produce high-intensity spikes in engagement

• Growing their distribution network: gaining organic reach from athletes, fans, Formula Fixed, and partner channels sharing content

James and Clare are building a media engine that meets people where they are, and most of the time, that’s online. The goal is to give people content they are already comfortable consuming, but with the added novelty of showing them something they’ve never seen before. James summed it up well:

“Putting on events is only one part of audience growth. We have a really robust content strategy backing everything up. We basically present Formula Fixed from all angles and give everybody an on-ramp.”

With Formula Fixed, athletes win on and off the track

When our conversation shifted to the types of athletes competing in Formula Fixed, I was curious how James and Clare are able to attract the caliber of athletes that they do. Is it the prize money, the racing style, or the pure love of the culture? Culture yes, prize money no.

“If the only way that they make money is through prize money, it’s always going to go to the same small group of people that have more resources.” - James

As Clare went on to explain, the biggest draw for athletes is exposure and financial support.

Athlete support

When I asked the question, I was not expecting financial support to be part of the answer. Marquee series like the Life Time Grand Prix are only now introducing rider stipends, and those likely cover travel and lodging for one race, if that. In 2024,Formula Fixed provided athletes with a stipend based on several criteria, including distance traveled. Starting in 2026, the series will provide travel and accommodation as standard support for rostered athletes. As Formula Fixed scales, so too will athlete compensation

“The cost of having to travel around to these events is something that makes people be like, ‘oh, I’m going to choose to do this one and this one.’ So, for our athlete roster, if you’re racing in the series, you’re racing every single race. We have resources set aside to make sure that you can actually do that financially.” - James

For a new series, that is a remarkable level of support, but it is already paying off. By committing to their athletes financially, Formula Fixed has built loyalty and trust within the community, establishing a reputation that will continue to draw future talent to the series.

New talent pipelines

As I discussed with Hayden Christian, younger athletes are venturing outside of standard development pipelines and opting for paths that provide more social capital, attract brand sponsors, and showcase their abilities to a wider audience. Formula Fixed is all in on their media machine, and for many athletes that is a massive draw.

Unlike the Life Time Grand Prix, which gained notoriety largely from the fan bases of its participating athletes, Formula Fixed is able to provide athletes with a media platform that can reach far beyond what they could build on their own. James, Clare, and I all agree that there is an abundance of talent in the United States, but not enough development pipelines or marketable events to make those athletes full-time professionals.

“We suffer from a wealth of talent in the United States, and those super talented athletes are underserved by the platforms that they currently have. The best riders in the country were just racing in Tucson, Arizona, and the majority of sporting fans in the country didn’t hear anything about it. We’ve got athletes on our roster who, if they were playing basketball, would be all-stars.” - Clare

The Formula Fixed media strategy has made it easier to fill rosters with talented athletes from a diverse set of backgrounds, whether that be from a different cycling discipline, underserved communities, or even newcomers to the sport entirely. For all of them, Formula Fixed is presenting an enticing platform and a genuine entry point into professional racing.

Simple but powerful: the Formula Fixed business model

We’ve talked about all the characteristics that make Formula Fixed an attractive entity, but their business model is just as compelling. It is simple, scalable, and pitchable. Formula Fixed has three main revenue streams.

Brands

Formula Fixed has already a proven track record with brand partnerships, like collaborating with notable brands Rapha and Red Bull in previous seasons. Paid partnerships, branded content, and brand licensing all create an outsized revenue stream as long as Formula Fixed continues to grow their audience.

In 2024, Formula Fixed reached a projected audience of 5.6 million viewers with zero dollars in ad spend. As long as they continue to grow audiences organically, Formula Fixed will remain an attractive partner for major brands. Clare also highlighted why their focus on storytelling creates a stronger value proposition than a typical race series. When speaking about their previous partnerships with Red Bull and Rapha, she said:

“They saw culture. Formula Fixed lives at the intersection of performance and culture. It’s urban, it’s fast, it’s youth driven, and that really aligns with brands that want relevance, not just exposure. It’s not just logo placement. It’s identity alignment.”

Fans

Ticketing, merchandise, and associated experiences represent core operational income. As with any live events business, Formula Fixed is aiming to generate predictable attendance that will drive higher consumer spending over time.

Media

While media may not be a significant revenue driver yet, Formula Fixed is laying the groundwork through their social engine and focus on storytelling. Over time, this will allow them to generate revenue from media rights, content monetization, and licensing.

Clare summed up where revenue comes from today and where they expect it to come from in the future:

“At outset, revenue is driven by paid partnerships, ticketing and merchandise are secondary revenue streams. At scale, our revenue drivers are brand, fans, and media, and revenues coming from key partnerships and brand integration.”

A compelling economic entity

Investment will be crucial to growing cycling in the United States. In some instances it will mean making the case for wealthy individuals to donate to collegiate programs or USA Cycling. In others it will be venture capital and private equity investing in businesses that provide the goods and services that make the sport possible. Investing in Formula Fixed would be a financial investment that directly contributes to the sport’s growth, but with the possibility of a real return.

Even for an investor who is disinterested in the growth of cycling and purely seeking economic gain, the unit economics of Formula Fixed are compelling. As we discussed last week, Formula Fixed falls firmly into the small to medium-sized business category. A venture investor won’t be generating hundreds of millions in return, but they can most certainly outperform the market when it comes to percentage return on investment.

James and Clare were gracious enough to share their pitch deck with me, and I can confidently say no numbers were pulled out of thin air. They know exactly what impact additional capital would have on the business. There are plenty of sports focused VCs that invest in small sports entities, and they should not overlook Formula Fixed.

Created by two determined partners, Formula Fixed is offering a fresh take on cycling that is built for the digital age. Nothing about the format is traditional, and for cycling, that is its greatest strength. Non-cycling fans will see an exciting new sport and be drawn in by a true live viewing experience. If James and Clare continue on their current path, Formula Fixed is about to redefine what cycling can look like in the United States.

Do yourself a favor now and follow Formula Fixed!

Formula Fixed | Instagram | YouTube | Strava

Ride and Rip,

Kyle Dawes

A common theme is that the largest brands appear to be struggling the most. In previous editions of Built on Bikes, I’ve highlighted how emerging brands with lean operating structures have often outperformed their bigger competitors in efficiency and adaptability. Companies like Pas Normal Studios and Ventum have focused on specific corners of the market and scaled in a more sustainable way over the last five years.

Now that the COVID surge is firmly behind us, larger brands are trying to restore healthy margins and regain profitability. Smaller brands, meanwhile, seem to be operating business as usual, staying lean and concentrating on brand development and steady growth.

One of the biggest differences between large and small brands during this period has been outside capital. Many smaller brands are bootstrapped or lightly funded, while several larger players were swept up in private equity activity during the COVID boom. Holding companies acquired brands in an effort to scale operations, meet surging demand, and extract value from already strong names. The upside, however, was short-lived.

High-profile deals such as GBL’s acquisition of Canyon and RZC Investments’ purchase of Rapha have faced criticism. Canyon leaned heavily into mass direct-to-consumer scale, and service quality appeared to decline post-acquisition. Rapha, as I’ve written about before, seemed to drift from some of the brand qualities that defined its rise in the 2010s. It’s no surprise that many cycling enthusiasts now view private equity involvement with skepticism.

The prevailing narrative has become simple: large acquisitions lead to profit-first thinking at the expense of quality and heritage. While I understand that sentiment, I think it misses an important nuance. Not all acquisitions are destructive. Some smaller, strategic deals have actually delivered meaningful benefits to consumers.

2026 and 2027 could be pivotal years for the cycling industry, particularly if we see a renewed wave of mergers and acquisitions. There will probably be monster deals similar to Canyon’s, but I think the real opportunity lies elsewhere, in smaller brands that have already proven sustainability and built strong, recognizable identities.

And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I’m not on the side of the investor. I think these types of deals could be incredibly beneficial to the brands we love and to us as consumers. Today I want to discuss how it could look and work.

What is the market telling us?

We know there was a COVID boom followed by a sharp decline, but now that things have stabilized, where is the industry heading? Will the entire market struggle alongside the biggest brands, or will a new wave of smaller brands emerge as the next industry leaders?

It is difficult to predict. But if recent history tells us anything, the cycling industry appears primed for another phase of private market activity.

In 2024, investment bank Houlihan Lokey and management consulting firm Kearney released a comprehensive report on M&A activity in the cycling industry, analyzing trends from 2020 through 2024. It is worth reading in full, but here are the key takeaways.

M&A ebb and flow

M&A activity peaked in 2022, riding the momentum of the COVID boom years in 2020 and 2021. There were 96 transactions in 2022. In 2023, that number dropped sharply to 66. For comparison, between 2015 and 2019, annual M&A activity typically ranged from 20 to 25 transactions.

That contrast underscores just how significant the COVID boom was. So does this mean we are heading back to historically low M&A volumes? Not necessarily.

As part of the report, more than 30 industry executives and 10 financial investment firms were interviewed. The prevailing sentiment was that activity is unlikely to drop back to pre-COVID levels. Houlihan Lokey forecasted a “gradual recovery with significant upside in the medium to long term” and noted that “2026 and 2027 mark pivotal years for increased M&A activity.”

The timing aligns with the typical lifecycle of a private equity investment. Firms generally aim to create value over a three to six year period before exiting. That framework lines up closely with investments made during the 2020 and 2021 boom. As those assets mature and the market stabilizes, exits will likely increase, and new investors may enter the space as well.

Strategic vs. financial investment

The type of M&A activity can be just as important as the volume of transactions, because structure often determines what happens to a brand after the deal closes. Broadly speaking, there are two categories worth focusing on: financial and strategic.

Financial investments typically involve private equity or other outside investment firms acquiring a company outright or taking a majority stake. In most cases, the company’s leadership team remains in place, while the board expands to include new stakeholders.

The expectation is straightforward. With additional capital and operational oversight, the company should grow faster, improve margins, and ultimately become more valuable ahead of a future exit.

Strategic investments usually take the form of mergers or acquisitions where one brand is absorbed into another operating company. The core idea is synergy. Shared R&D, combined distribution, and overlapping customer bases are meant to create efficiencies and unlock growth that would be difficult independently.

A recent example is Strava’s acquisition of Runna, where product integration and audience overlap were clear drivers of the deal.

Since 2020, the split between financial and strategic deals has remained relatively balanced:

2020: 67% financial vs 33% strategic

2021: 55% financial vs 45% strategic

2022: 54% financial vs 46% strategic

2023: 58% financial vs 42% strategic

While fairly even, financial investments have consistently edged out strategic ones.

Looking ahead, I would expect that pattern to continue, and possibly tilt even further toward financial deals. As capital looks for disciplined growth opportunities in a stabilizing market, investment firms may see more upside in backing strong independent brands rather than consolidating them outright.

The importance of brand

In line with many of the trends I have written about previously, 100 percent of the industry executives interviewed for the study agreed that brand strength will become more important moving forward.

That may sound obvious from a consumer perspective. But in M&A, a strong brand has not always been a prerequisite.

For private equity firms, a company with solid financials but limited brand equity can actually be appealing. If the fundamentals are sound, investors can acquire the business at a more attractive valuation and create value by upgrading marketing, refining positioning, and expanding distribution. In that scenario, weaker brand recognition can mean a lower entry price and more room for multiple expansion.

If well established brands become table stakes for deals, that changes the equation. Private equity investors would need to pay a premium upfront for companies that already command pricing power and customer loyalty.

Keys to growth

Houlihan Lokey identified several themes expected to drive future M&A activity. While the report outlined multiple factors, these stand out as particularly important:

• Presence in, or the ability to produce, e bikes
  

• Strong and defensible branding
  

• Vertical integration, especially with direct to consumer distribution
  

• Streamlined production models with healthy margins

As the industry stabilizes, brands are positioning themselves to grow again. If forecasts hold, the next few years could bring another surge in M&A activity.

My suspicion is that there will be a lot more smaller deals that might necessarily create big headlings. These acquisitions could strengthen balance sheets, improve operations, and ultimately benefit founders, investors, and consumers alike.

Back to the M&A stigma

I alluded to it earlier, but the elephant in the room is how cycling fans feel about outside capital entering the brands they love.

Many will point to Rapha and argue that external investment contributed to the erosion of what was once a dominant and culturally defining brand. There is some truth to that critique. At the same time, it is far too simple to say outside money automatically leads to brand decline. There are plenty of examples that complicate that narrative.

Take ENVE Composites. The Utah based carbon wheel and component manufacturer has gone through two acquisitions in the past decade. In 2016, it was acquired by Amer Sports for 50 million dollars. In 2024, it was sold again to PV3 Investments for an undisclosed amount.

An undisclosed sale price often raises eyebrows. In some cases, that language can mask underwhelming returns. It is reasonable to assume that may have been part of the story here. According to PitchBook data, ENVE’s annual revenue reportedly grew by only about 4 million dollars between 2016 and 2025. That is essentially flat growth over nearly a decade, suggesting Amer Sports likely did not see the kind of return it hoped for.

But that does not mean private ownership was inherently bad for the brand.

Under Amer Sports, ENVE remained highly regarded in the market. Its wheels are used by UAE Team Emirates, one of the most successful road teams in modern history. The company also expanded into complete bikes, which have been widely praised for their design and ride quality. The fundamentals of the brand remained intact.

It is also worth noting that the owner of PV3 Investments is an avid cyclist. That alignment of passion and capital, combined with ENVE’s stable positioning at the premium end of the market, could create a more focused growth chapter.

Strategic acquisitions tend to face less backlash from consumers. In many ways, they are simply part of the industry’s fabric. One of the most prolific strategic acquirers is SRAM, which has built a portfolio that includes:

• RockShox

• Velocio

• Zipp

• Time

• Quarq

• Hammerhead

SRAM certainly has its critics, but rarely because it acquires brands. If anything, its track record shows that strategic consolidation, when executed thoughtfully, can strengthen innovation, distribution, and brand longevity.

Outside capital is not inherently good or bad. The outcome depends on structure, incentives, leadership, and how well the acquiring party understands the culture of the brand they are backing.

Finding brands on the verge

Up to this point, everything I have outlined is informed speculation based on the data available to us. We do not know whether increased M&A activity will materialize, or how it would ultimately reshape the industry.

That said, my hypothesis is straightforward. The cycling industry is filled with small to mid sized brands that present attractive targets for private equity investors and strategic buyers alike.

Most headline deals will likely focus on brands serving the broader mass market. But within the performance and enthusiast segment, there are companies that could generate respectable returns on a shorter investment horizon, think three years rather than seven to ten. Smaller funds, especially those with genuine ties to cycling, may view these brands as relatively safe, brand driven growth plays.

For founders and operators, the appeal is just as clear. Outside capital can provide operational guidance, expanded distribution, marketing resources, and supply chain leverage that meaningfully accelerate growth. There are risks to that strategy, and I will address those shortly. For now, it is worth highlighting a few brands that strike me as compelling investment candidates.

Pas Normal Studios

This is not the first time I have written about Pas Normal Studios in Built on Bikes. The Copenhagen based apparel brand has consistently outperformed larger competitors in the premium cycling category. Its disciplined growth strategy and sharp brand identity have positioned it as one of the most influential players in modern cycling apparel.

With reported 2024 revenues of approximately 27 million dollars, the company is substantial, but still meaningfully smaller than a brand like Rapha. That makes it large enough to matter, yet small enough to grow.

There is also a structural nuance worth noting. One of the founders previously launched Wood Wood, a respected name in luxury streetwear. That background matters. In luxury fashion, M&A activity is common, and founders are often familiar with minority stakes, growth capital, and strategic partnerships.

In fact, Pas Normal Studios already has outside investment. Archive Srl, the investment vehicle of the family behind Moncler, holds a minority stake in the company. That existing structure suggests two things. First, the founders are comfortable operating with outside capital. Second, there is already institutional validation of the brand’s long term value.

Pas Normal has already ventured into off-the-bike clothing that appeals to luxury fashion and streetwear consumers beyond cycling, making them an attractive acquisition target for PE firms already investing in the fashion industry. With experienced founders at the helm, Pas Normal could navigate an acquisition strategically and potentially challenge Rapha’s market position.

Ventum

Another brand you might recognize from a previous story is the bike manufacturer, Ventum. This brand shares many qualities with an earlier version of Canyon with their sleek race designs and a direct-to-consumer model. But Ventum hasn’t expanded as rapidly, and I don’t think that should even be the goal.

Ventum excels at making affordable frames with an emphasis on race geometries for triathlon, road, and gravel. Their consolidated frame selection shields them from the excess inventory problems that have plagued brands like Canyon and Trek.

Two resources that would unlock Ventum’s next phase are better distribution in the EU and Asia, plus expanded manufacturing capabilities to meet rising demand. Otherwise, Ventum is already operating with efficiency, scalability, and healthy margins.

A strategic acquirer is hard to envision, but a PE firm with bike industry experience could provide the capital and infrastructure to elevate Ventum to the level of Pinarello or Factor while maintaining their price advantage.

Wolf Tooth Components

Wolf Tooth Components specializes in making high-quality bike components and accessories. Within the performance and equipment-focused communities, the brand has made a name for itself by producing components that can significantly upgrade the efficiency or functionality of certain parts of a bike.

Based out of Minnesota, the brand is already producing a large volume of products, indicating they have formed an incredibly efficient base of operations. Wolf Tooth has a strong direct-to-consumer business but also maintains a healthy retail footprint in the United States through their ecosystem of partner dealers.

The brand’s next step is major retail expansion, specifically in markets outside of the United States. For this goal, a strategic acquisition from a major retailer could make sense. Decathlon could be that acquirer.

Decathlon is the largest global retailer of outdoor equipment in the world, with thousands of stores spread across 60 countries. With annual revenues reaching 15 billion euros, Decathlon is positioned to easily acquire smaller brands.

The move wouldn’t be to acquire Wolf Tooth for exclusive retail rights but rather to increase traffic and sales in their bike department, which is on the rise. Decathlon recently introduced its in-house bike brand Van Rysel, and demand has been exceptional. Acquiring Wolf Tooth could offer an easy upsell on new Van Rysel purchases and make Decathlon a go-to destination for bike enthusiasts seeking quality parts faster.

Cycling will need money in the post COVID era

Whether we like it or not, the cycling industry will need more investment in a post-COVID world if we want the sport and the activity to continue growing. I don’t think the goal should be to return to pre-COVID M&A numbers. Increased investment from outside investors will certainly hurt the quality of certain brands, but it will also benefit deserving brands that will eventually reward consumers with better products.

Just like when I talk about funding development in the United States, the best-case scenario for financial investment is the presence of people who care about cycling and have experience investing in consumer brands in a growth capacity. All we can do is keep our eye on where the money goes over the next few years.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Two weeks ago, I published a piece outlining how the United States could become the dominant nation in women’s cycling. The focus was simple: there is a clear gap between the U23 level and WorldTour racing, and we have not built a strong enough bridge between the two.

I outlined two potential paths that could improve American rider development and ultimately produce more professionals. The first was a significant investment in the domestic road scene. More high-quality pack racing in the U.S. would better prepare athletes for the demands of European competition. The second was to expand our footprint of women’s Continental teams. A higher volume of Conti teams would increase competition domestically while also creating more structured stepping stones for riders aiming to race abroad.

The final component of that article addressed the economics of Continental teams and sponsorships. I broke down what it actually costs to start a Continental team and how those teams could be pitched to sponsors in a way that communicates real, measurable value rather than abstract exposure.

Shortly after publishing the piece, a former Built on Bikes guest reached out. Yuri Hauswald, Athlete Manager at GU, said the topic immediately made him think of a Bay Area team that is already attempting to bridge the gap between development and professional racing: SpeedBlock-Terún.

Yuri connected me with Sarah Flamm, who races for the team while also handling various administrative responsibilities. Within days, I had a call scheduled with Sarah and Erik Garfinkel, owner of Palo Alto Concrete and SpeedBlock, the team’s title sponsor.

Going into the conversation, I wanted to understand how SpeedBlock-Terún approaches rider development, how they have achieved longevity in a volatile domestic road scene, and how they think about professional ambitions as an organization. I was equally interested in hearing from Erik. What does it actually mean to sponsor a team like this? What factors matter when a sponsor evaluates a proposal? And how can teams create value in a way that feels sustainable rather than transactional?

SpeedBlock-Terún

Similar to my conversation with Eric Hill, founder of the UCI Continental team Project Echelon, I wanted to understand what makes SpeedBlock-Terún both viable and marketable in today’s domestic landscape. My goal is the same as it was with that piece, to highlight working models so other teams in the United States can learn from them and, in turn, help move the sport forward.

Before diving into what makes the team tick, a bit of background on the team.

Based in Palo Alto and founded in 2004, SpeedBlock-Terún operates as a three-tiered men’s and women’s program. The structure includes a club team, a development squad, and a domestic elite racing team. That layered system is central to how they think about sustainability and growth.

The team’s title sponsors reflect a community focused approach. SpeedBlock, a revolutionary concrete block system, is owned by Erik Garfinkel through his local company, Palo Alto Concrete and Construction. Terún is a Palo Alto pizzeria owned by Franco and Maico Campilongo. Both sponsors are deeply embedded in the community the team rides in every day.

Longevity in a volatile sport

The first thing I asked Sarah was how the team has achieved longevity in the American road racing scene and what’s made it possible. Sarah was precise in her answer, listing three pillars of the team’s identity that creates loyalty and attracts talent.

Community first culture

One of the most unique aspects of SpeedBlock-Terún is that it embraces a culture more commonly found in European club cycling. At its foundation is an 80-rider club team that is open to anyone who wants to join, supported by an active calendar of group rides and community events.

On top of that foundation are both a development team and a domestic elite squad for the most competitive racers. Together, these tiers create a system where community and performance coexist. The elite and development riders benefit from structure and professional support, while the broader club gains exposure to high-level racing experience that filters down through mentorship and shared training environments.

Sarah described the dynamic simply:

“The team is formed in a dynamic fashion. Friends bring friends, fellow racers recruit fellow racers. Folks who are involved genuinely enjoy riding bikes, being outside and like hanging out with each other. It’s a big tent, all types of riders are welcome.”

Local, tangible sponsors

A major upside for local businesses that sponsor a cycling team is simple visibility. At any given time, multiple riders are out on community roads serving as rolling billboards. But beyond exposure, there is something more powerful at play.

Unlike sponsorships from intangible brands such as software companies, SpeedBlock-Terún represents businesses that are physically embedded in the community. Their sponsors are not abstract logos. They are restaurants people eat at and construction companies that build homes and commercial spaces in the very neighborhoods the team rides through.

Tangible sponsors from the team’s community create a mutually beneficial relationship. Sponsors benefit from consistent, visible advertising, while the team gains relevance beyond the cycling world.

Strong non-profit organizational structure

Just like Project Echelon, SpeedBlock-Terún is organized as a non-profit. Sarah highlighted that this is a major strength for the team because it creates a legitimate structure for decision making and administrative accountability, ensuring all funds go back into the organization.

“There’s a four-person board of directors, and those directors rotate out. We have a board president, a CFO, a secretary, a vice president, and we all meet and discuss administrative matters.”

Much like Project Echelon, SpeedBlock-Terún is a well-organized team with strong stories to tell, firmly rooted in the community they operate in. These elements work together to create a meaningful local footprint that naturally attracts emerging talent.

Development is a team effort

Attracting talent is important, but a team also needs to follow through on developing it. Sarah made it clear that SpeedBlock-Terún takes a long-term approach, prioritizing sustainability for both the athlete and the organization. The philosophy is protective and rider-first, avoiding the kind of pressure that can lead to burnout.

Key attributes of SpeedBlock-Terún’s development model include:

Access to professional support:

A recent example is the hiring of the team’s first director sportif.

“We’ve recently hired a professional who can assist with development this year. She is recently out of the sport after 12 years of professional racing and she meets one-on-one with riders to have check ins and chats. She will be at the races and she will be directing the team.”

Diffused leadership and mentorship:

Because the team is not currently a Continental program, it can retain experienced riders who help guide younger teammates.

“We have a diffused system of leadership so riders can teach their fellow riders. It’s really strong and sustainable.”

Rider-first policies:

There is no requirement to race in Europe or follow a rigid schedule. While the team targets certain events and may travel abroad for blocks of racing, riders maintain autonomy. That flexibility reduces stress and allows development across different environments.

“No one has this mentality of, ‘I have to race. This is so stressful.’ We don’t want that. The attitude is, we’re so lucky, we can train, we can ride, and we can race.”

Developing women’s cycling

This was one of my favorite topics to discuss with Sarah. She raised important points about the potential downsides of pushing American riders to Europe and the WorldTour as quickly as possible. Her perspective made me reconsider how heavily I emphasized that goal in my previous article.

The most significant risk is burnout. Intensive, accelerated development can shorten careers just as easily as it can elevate them. Sarah offered several viewpoints that support a different approach: build more Continental teams, strengthen U.S. racing, and focus first on creating a deep and sustainable domestic system. Producing a higher volume of WorldTour talent can follow from there.

“I’m not convinced that necessarily that a lot of riders want to go race in Europe. I’m not sure that that needs to be the goal necessarily or if that’s the best way to develop talent. We have some riders that did race in Europe and it backfired because they burnt out.”

Staying rooted in the United States has benefited the team. Riders can learn race tactics from experienced teammates while remaining connected to their day-to-day lives. Sarah emphasized that the ecosystem of women’s road racing in the U.S. is stronger than many realize, pointing to events like the Redlands Cycling Classic as proof.

“This year there are 20 women’s teams. There’ll be 150 women in the field this year, which is the biggest field that women have ever had.”

Rather than solely acting as a bridge between amateur and Continental racing, SpeedBlock-Terún’s goal is to elevate its own program to Continental status, expanding its development capabilities from within. Sarah’s perspective suggests a more measured path forward: allow a steady trickle of American women to reach the WorldTour while continuing to invest heavily in domestic racing. Over time, that foundation could produce even more WorldTour talent.

Switching gears

After gaining valuable insight from Sarah, I shifted the conversation to Erik to better understand his decision to sponsor an American club team. Pitching a development or semi-pro team to U.S. sponsors is notoriously difficult, so my first question was simple: why?

It turns out Erik was more than casually familiar with cycling. He grew up in the sport, raced competitively, and even moved to Europe when he was younger to pursue professional racing. That background made it clear he understood what sponsoring a team entails. As he explained:

“I did it when I was younger, so I’m kind of giving back. For sure it starts with a passion.”

Passion alone was not enough, though. Erik emphasized that the team’s professionalism and structure played a major role in his decision. He had previously considered starting his own squad, but found it more practical and reliable to support an established organization with strong leadership and deep community ties.

“What I really like about Sarah’s team and the organization is exactly all of these she said, the community, the organization that they had already had. They’re professional.”

It may sound obvious, but pitching to sponsors who already have a connection to cycling is a significant advantage. For teams seeking funding, identifying business owners who are embedded in the sport may require more effort upfront, but it can make the pitch far more natural and effective.

As Sarah noted earlier, pairing that passion with tangible, community-rooted businesses creates a powerful combination.

How to be attractive to a sponsor

Erik made a pertinent point that for a team to be attractive to a sponsor, they need to have a media footprint. Especially for smaller teams that won’t get TV time, having a social following that is much broader than that of a sponsor’s is the single most attractive for a team from a marketing standpoint.

In the United States, live streaming for road and gravel events is on the rise, but still doesn’t reach a large enough or even local enough audience for the types of sponsors we are looking for. Erik believes the marketing landscape, and the role of teams within it, has fundamentally changed.

“It’s a new job that teams didn’t have to do 10 or 20 years ago. Be all the cool factors so that people rally for you and people want to sponsor you.”

Alongside that shift, he reinforced a point I’ve emphasized before: storytelling is how teams grow and attract sponsors. With teams like EF Education–EasyPost and Unibet Rose Rockets building large audiences through behind-the-scenes content, it’s more feasible than ever for a developmental program like SpeedBlock-Terún to carve out meaningful attention.

In many ways, SpeedBlock-Terún’s biggest opportunity may lie in telling the stories of its developing riders. With many athletes balancing full-time careers alongside racing, that narrative could resonate far beyond the traditional cycling audience and show what’s possible for “ordinary” people pursuing the sport at a high level.

Budgets

In my previous piece on women’s cycling in the United States, I broke down the financial commitments required to become a Continental team recognized by the UCI and USA Cycling. After learning more about SpeedBlock-Terún’s budget, I can admit I was generous in my projections for a hypothetical eight-rider Continental squad.

For SpeedBlock-Terún, moving up to Continental status is a realistic future goal. Even with a larger roster, the budget required appears more attainable than I previously estimated. It’s still a significant sum, but far more manageable.

The primary hurdles would be rider and staff compensation, along with travel costs. With the addition of another sponsor or successful fundraising, building a Continental team capable of targeting select European races feels achievable. My conversations with Sarah and Erik made the prospect of more U.S.-based pro teams seem far less distant.

SpeedBlock-Terún is taking the next step

My conversation with Sarah and Erik was incredibly insightful and, honestly, energizing. It added important context to my previous article and challenged some of my assumptions. Two weeks ago I was unaware of this team. Now, after speaking with two of its key figures, my perspective has broadened significantly.

I have a clearer understanding of:

• What is already possible and actively happening in domestic development
  

• The reliable building blocks that create a strong, marketable team structure
  

• How far a well-managed budget can realistically go

More than anything, the conversation reinforced that meaningful progress in American women’s (and men’s) cycling is not theoretical. It is already underway.

Connecting the dots

Many of the points I made in my previous article were reinforced by Sarah and Erik’s insight, while others were challenged and refined. Both outcomes are valuable. This Substack is meant to evolve alongside the conversations shaping the sport.

My understanding of domestic development shifts with each new discussion, and I’m never hesitant to revisit or revise earlier theories. Grounded, real-world insight is how we make progress. Before wrapping up this topic, I want to clearly outline what currently feels like the most effective path forward for domestic development.

What are the building blocks of strong domestic development teams?

Every situation is different, so this is by no means a one-size-fits-all approach. But these are traits that have proven both successful and differentiating among the domestic teams I’ve spoken with.

Teams rooted in community succeed

This point carries a double meaning, but centers on one theme: having people physically present makes a team stronger.

Speaking with Sarah and Erik made it clear that SpeedBlock-Terún’s European-style club structure has been key to its longevity and growth. Riders have a community to train with, confide in, and learn from. The combination of a large club base, a development squad, and an elite team keeps the program visible, active, and appealing to sponsors.

The second meaning of community is geographic. Rooting the team’s identity in a physical location creates tangible value for local sponsors. As we saw with Project Echelon and its active local outreach, becoming embedded in a community is highly attractive to businesses. SpeedBlock-Terún has successfully leaned into this through strong, locally rooted sponsorships.

There is a “type” of sponsor you should pitch to

As mentioned above, Erik pointed out the advantages of partnering with tangible, local businesses. If those businesses already have ties to cycling, even better.

Other desirable characteristics in a sponsor include:

• A business model that typically generates strong cash flow
  

• A genuine use case for increased community marketing, especially in a way that differentiates the brand and adds a “cool” factor to its image

Flexibility reduces burnout

While SpeedBlock-Terún is primarily focused on road racing, riders have the flexibility to target select events and even compete in other disciplines. That variety helps athletes develop a broader skill set, maintain their love for the sport, and balance professional ambitions with their careers outside of cycling.

It also raises an important question about how quickly we push riders toward European racing. Many domestic athletes may prefer to compete primarily in the U.S. rather than immediately pursuing the WorldTour. By incorporating European racing strategically, rather than treating it as the ultimate objective, riders can gain valuable experience without dramatically increasing the risk of burnout. It also allows them to make a more informed decision about whether that path truly aligns with their goals.

Continental status is nice, but not required

SpeedBlock-Terún is proof that elite domestic teams not only exist, but can thrive. I previously assumed Continental status was the minimum requirement to secure meaningful sponsor support. In reality, any team can attract sponsors if it can tell a compelling story.

In fact, we may need more teams like SpeedBlock-Terún rather than simply more Continental programs. Bridging the gap between U23 or amateur racing and the pro ranks is difficult. Jumping straight into the deep end does not always build skill, it often just teaches survival, as we saw with Hayden Christian. More strong domestic elite teams would deepen the U.S. racing scene and create a healthier development ladder. Over time, that could send more riders to Europe or even help make American road racing strong enough to attract the WorldTour back to the U.S.

Ultimately, budget determines whether a team survives. Domestic elite programs allow resources to stretch further than they might at the Continental level, offering a more sustainable path for many organizations.

Full speed ahead

I’m grateful that Yuri connected me with Sarah and Erik. Our conversation gave me a clearer understanding of what makes a team both sustainable and marketable. SpeedBlock-Terún has a big year ahead, and I’m excited to follow their progress throughout the season.

Racing in the United States is alive and well. If we continue building sustainable and marketable team structures, there is real potential to elevate it back onto the world stage.

Be sure to follow SpeedBlock-Terún, SpeedBlock, and Terún Pizzeria!

Remembering Hannah Henry

It’s with a heavy heart that I close another edition of Built on Bikes with tragic news. Last Saturday, two-time NCAA triathlon national champion Hannah Henry was struck and killed by a driver who fled the scene. Hannah was training in a dedicated bike lane when she was killed by a criminally negligent motorist. Sadly, this is not a unique story and something that has somehow become the default risk associated with cycling.

In addition to keeping Hannah’s family in our thoughts, I strongly encourage you to support the work of the White Line Foundation. The foundation was created by the parents of Magnus White, a 17-year-old national champion cyclist who was killed by a driver while training. They advocate for stronger safety measures, better driver education, and stricter consequences for motorists who negligently strike cyclists and pedestrians.

Visit their website to donate and prevent future road deaths.

Safe riding,

Kyle Dawes

We are back to a topic that has become near and dear to my heart: collegiate cycling. If you have been reading Built on Bikes for a while, or if you are new here, you have probably seen the growing archive of articles I have written on this subject for my content series, Foundations. From interviewing a professional cyclist who got their start in college to speaking with a USA Cycling official, I have explored a wide range of perspectives on the current state and future of collegiate cycling in the United States.

Those perspectives have been incredibly valuable as I continue to examine whether collegiate cycling could evolve into a more defined pathway to a professional career. One perspective I had been missing until now was that of someone working inside a collegiate program. I wanted to understand the realities they currently face, along with the opportunities they see moving forward. Strengthening collegiate cycling as a development pipeline will require a deep and honest understanding of every part of the ecosystem, especially from those operating within it.

I tend to put forward a lot of hypotheses about what might work best, but hearing directly from someone embedded in a successful varsity program may be the most important input of all. That perspective allows me to pressure test previous assumptions and better identify which opportunities actually exist within collegiate competition, not just in theory but in practice. It also helps ground this conversation in reality before attempting to distribute ideas to the people who can make meaningful change possible.

For this piece, I spoke with someone uniquely qualified to assess collegiate cycling. He came through a successful collegiate program as an athlete, turned professional after his college career, and now serves as the director of the very program that helped develop him. There may not be anyone better placed to offer a clear and honest evaluation of where collegiate cycling stands today and where it could realistically go next.

*Varsity cycling programs are central to this conversation. If you want more context on why varsity status matters, I recommend reading my previous article on cycling and the NCAA.

Ian Burnett

For this piece, I spoke with Ian Burnett, who is currently the Cycling Director at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado. As mentioned earlier, Ian came through Fort Lewis’ cycling program as an athlete, where he was a member of championship-winning teams in cyclocross and the team time trial. After graduating from Fort Lewis, he went on to race professionally for five years, including time with Jelly Belly Pro Cycling. Today, he heads the cycling program at Fort Lewis, which spans six disciplines and continues the school’s reputation for excellence in mountain biking, cyclocross, and road racing.

In his day-to-day role, Ian oversees the fundraising efforts that make the team possible, works closely with the school’s athletic department, creates team budgets, manages trip planning, insurance, and the many other administrative responsibilities required to keep the program moving forward. Taken together, these responsibilities, along with Fort Lewis’ status as a legendary program, make Ian one of the most qualified people to speak to the forces shaping collegiate cycling in the United States.

Fort Lewis Cycling

As I’ve already alluded to, Fort Lewis carries a reputation as one of, if not the best, collegiate cycling programs in the United States. Notable alumni include Todd Wells, Savilia Blunk, Sarah Sturm, Payson McElveen, Riley Amos, and Howard Grotts. Within the world of off-road racing, Fort Lewis could reasonably be considered the best development program in the world.

The program’s success is not only a product of exceptional staff, but also of its location. Durango, Colorado is one of the most iconic mountain biking communities in the world and gives the Fort Lewis cycling team access to world-class terrain, along with the physiological benefits that come from training at altitude.

This combination of leadership, environment, and long-term vision has resulted in a sustainable model of success, which is why Fort Lewis is one of only twenty varsity cycling programs in the United States. Where Fort Lewis really becomes a model for success is in their program structure.

The varsity/club balance

One of the first things that Ian brought to my attention was Fort Lewis’ all-inclusive structure.

“We’re the only varsity program that also has a club side to it… an all-inclusive varsity program.”

Whereas every other university keeps their varsity and club programs separate, Fort Lewis combines the two with great success. This unique structure carries many benefits, with the biggest being in-program development that allows new talent to be identified quickly, even when athletes start at the club level.

Sarah Sturm is a perfect example of this in practice. Sarah entered the cycling program without racing experience and with no formal bike training. Even though she was completely new to the sport and had significant inexperience to overcome, her natural talent on the bike quickly became apparent. Today, Sarah is one of the top off-road athletes in the world. Her story highlights the importance of collegiate cycling and why Fort Lewis’ approach may be one worth replicating.

Fort Lewis’ varsity and club structure may be a model we want to recreate, but first we need full context on the other challenges and opportunities that currently exist within collegiate cycling.

The current role of collegiate cycling

I was especially curious to hear Ian’s thoughts on the role collegiate cycling currently plays in U.S. athlete development. His program is consistently producing elite talent, but Fort Lewis can fairly be viewed as an outlier within the broader collegiate landscape. If we can develop a clearer picture of how collegiate cycling functions today across disciplines and programs, identifying where meaningful change can happen becomes far more achievable.

Ian’s first observation was that the answer depends heavily on discipline. There is no one-size-fits-all assessment for collegiate cycling’s role in development. In mountain biking, collegiate racing has established itself as a legitimate pathway. As Ian put it, “pretty much the top U.S. men and women are racing collegiate.” That alignment between junior, collegiate, and elite racing is one of the strongest signals that the system can work when the incentives and infrastructure are in place.

Other disciplines remain less defined. Road racing continues to struggle with declining participation and limited domestic opportunities. Gravel, on the other hand, has created an alternative path entirely. Riders like Hayden Christensen have turned professional by independently attending races and earning results, often without any connection to a collegiate program. In those cases, college cycling is no longer a prerequisite for advancement.

Where Ian sees the greatest value in collegiate cycling is as an exploratory environment. Programs provide a space where new talent can be identified and developed in ways that align with the individual athlete, rather than forcing an early specialization or professional track.

“Collegiate programs give the students an opportunity to do something that they might not have necessarily done as a junior.”

That perspective reframes collegiate cycling less as a direct pipeline to the pros and more as a gateway into competitive racing. It introduces structure, coaching, and competition to athletes who may have never imagined themselves racing seriously.

Ian acknowledged that collegiate cycling is not producing a high volume of professionals immediately after graduation, but that alone is not evidence of a broken system. The real issue is the size of the gap between collegiate racing and professional competition in the United States.

“I think as a whole, for varsity programs, most students come in with that aspiration of turning pro, but they struggle with the reality of what ‘pro’ means right now. They may see the pro World Cup racers, but there’s just such a gap between college and that.”

While athletes like Riley Amos, Savilia Blunk, and Howard Grotts show that the leap is possible, they remain exceptions rather than the norm. For most talented riders, there still needs to be a bridge. That likely means either raising the overall level of collegiate competition or building clearer post-collegiate development pathways that help athletes progress without forcing them to abandon education or the sport altogether.

Challenges facing collegiate programs

In addition to his perspective on collegiate cycling’s role, I most wanted to hear about the biggest challenges that collegiate programs face so we can identify a better path forward. Ian discussed both expected challenges and several that I had not previously considered. Here’s what he highlighted.

Funding

No surprises here. Collegiate cycling programs operate in a resource-constrained environment, from USA Cycling’s limited capacity to assist programs to the fact that institutional funding for varsity teams is extremely limited.

The following challenges all act as reasons why universities might withhold funding from collegiate varsity programs or abstain from creating a program altogether.

Disparity between club and varsity competition

While Fort Lewis succeeds with their all-inclusive varsity program, schools without varsity programs struggle to produce club teams that can compete with varsity schools. Unlike Fort Lewis, where club-level talent can develop alongside the varsity squad, club teams often remain the ceiling for most universities.

“I think there’s a pretty big discrepancy between varsity and club teams, so that just makes it hard to create a larger volume of teams for consistent competition. Finding schools that support what is defined as varsity right now is hard. There’s less of the schools that want to invest in that.”

With a limited landscape of varsity competition, athletes lose development opportunities that come from highly competitive racing, and club teams remain the ceiling for varsity-worthy talent. As a result, the collegiate racing ecosystem is scattered and inconsistent.

Enrollment

This was a challenge I had not previously considered when arguing for cycling to become an NCAA sport. My initial thinking was that NCAA status would add legitimacy and encourage larger universities to invest in varsity programs. As Ian explained, enrollment ratios play a major role in a school’s decision-making.

“When you look at the big schools, the state schools, a cycling team is just never going to have that much of an impact on enrollment. That’s what we’ve seen, just by natural effect: small private schools adding varsity programs. When they add 50 to 75 kids to their admission numbers, it has a real impact on the school.”

Smaller universities have more incentive to invest because every net new tuition student carries a larger impact on the school’s finances.

Shifting attitudes towards higher education

Another major challenge facing collegiate cycling is a broader cultural and socioeconomic shift away from higher education in the United States. Fewer high school graduates are pursuing four-year degrees, instead opting for trade schools or entering the workforce immediately. This trend is well outside the control of collegiate cycling, but its root cause is clear: rising costs. More students simply cannot afford tuition and cannot justify taking on significant debt for a degree.

While collegiate cycling cannot reverse this cultural shift, it does have control over one critical factor: the barrier to entry into its programs. If more teams were fully funded, similar to NCAA sports, cycling would not represent an additional cost that students must justify on top of tuition. Under the current model, athletes are often required to buy into both club and varsity programs, which only further deters prospective students who are already weighing the financial burden of attending college in the first place.

Structural complexity of programs

This challenge builds on Ian’s earlier point about the disparity between varsity and club teams, but extends further into the structural inconsistency across collegiate cycling as a whole. Unlike NCAA sports, which are tightly regulated to promote competitive and organizational parity, collegiate cycling programs exist on a wide spectrum. At one end are scrappy, student-run club teams with limited resources. At the other are highly organized varsity programs like Fort Lewis that resemble professional development environments.

The natural instinct is to raise the overall level of professionalism and competition across collegiate cycling. However, Ian was careful to point out that doing so comes with trade-offs:

“I think adding barriers and making collegiate cycling more professional would be good. But making it more professional could add some complications to students’ lives that would maybe deter them, since there is so much added responsibility, pulling them away from school with traveling and all those things that come along with it.”

He also highlighted how academic standards and expectations vary widely between institutions, adding yet another layer of complexity. Unlike NCAA sports, where academic eligibility is more standardized, collegiate cycling operates across vastly different educational models.

“One thing we deal with specifically is the diversity of online schooling versus in-person requirements at different universities. There’s so much complexity to different programs, and I think we’ll have to fix things like that.”

Together, these structural inconsistencies make it difficult to create a unified, scalable system. Any effort to elevate collegiate cycling must balance increased professionalism with accessibility, academic compatibility, and the realities of student life.

Thoughts on NCAA classification

I’ve written about the NCAA extensively, so I was eager to hear Ian’s perspective on cycling potentially becoming an NCAA sport. Ian held a largely neutral stance on the proposition. He was candid about both the advantages it could bring and the potential drawbacks that deserve serious consideration.

When discussing the positives, Ian consistently returned to three major themes:

• Legitimacy

• Regulation

• Institutional knowledge

Sound familiar? If you’ve been following this Substack for a while, hopefully so. However, the way Ian framed these advantages added nuance to how I had previously thought about them.

“I think we’re fortunate right now that we’re not in that deep side of the admin work that the NCAA would bring. I think they can bring a lot of their institutional knowledge of how they regulate in a positive way too, because right now the current system is not that well regulated.

They have such a long list of things to try to figure out, but I think they’ve figured out organization and regulation for collegiate-level sports. I think that’s definitely the side they would bring, and I think it brings some legitimacy.”

To outside audiences, NCAA affiliation would immediately add legitimacy to collegiate cycling. Within collegiate programs themselves, the NCAA’s real value may be even more important. Structure, consistency, and institutional knowledge could bring much-needed order to a system that currently operates with significant variability. Over time, that stability could allow programs to plan further ahead and invest with more confidence.

As for the unintended consequences, we have already touched on many of them. Increased professionalization could deter certain athletes, raise barriers to entry, and make balancing school and racing more difficult. Those risks are real and cannot be ignored.

Even with those concerns, I believe this is an experiment worth exploring. Based on Ian’s perspective, it seems that collegiate cycling directors would at least be open to giving the NCAA a serious look, provided the transition is handled thoughtfully and with the student-athlete at the center.

Surprising insights

We’ve covered a lot of what Ian and I discussed and I can personally say that my views and aspirations for collegiate cycling have become clearer with the context that Ian provided. Overall, there were three points Ian made that surprised me. Those three points are areas for improvement and guidance for growing collegiate cycling. Incredibly helpful information if we are to make a detailed plan for growing collegiate cycling.

Smaller institutions might be the way, at least for now

Ian’s point around enrollment was something I hadn’t previously considered, and it makes complete sense. At the end of the day, it takes far less outside funding to start a varsity program at a smaller university, and the incentive for the school is clear: a meaningful increase in yearly tuition revenue. Creating a strong ecosystem of varsity teams at smaller universities would increase the density of competitive collegiate programs and, ideally, allow that momentum to spill over into larger state institutions over time.

This is not some grand proposal on my part, it is simply the natural order of things and what has been happening within collegiate cycling for years. With greater advocacy and visibility, we could help accelerate this process rather than relying on the historically slow pace of organic growth.

Lastly, if NCAA classification remains out of reach in the near term, raising outside funds to help launch more varsity programs may be the most practical path forward. Schools are rarely opposed to initiatives that open the door to new donors, and cycling could be well positioned to benefit from that reality.

Reframing pro pathway ideology

There are two parts to this point, and as I write this, USA Cycling has just announced an initiative that addresses one piece of the equation.

The first part centers on combating the fear prospective riders face when choosing between college and alternative professional pathways. Rising stars are getting younger in nearly every discipline of cycling, but the majority of athletes will still progress on a timeline that sees them peak physically in their late twenties and, for women, often well into their thirties.

Choosing to attend a strong collegiate program and develop through graduation does not mean an athlete is missing their opportunity to turn professional. Ian pointed to Sepp Kuss as a clear example. Sepp attended college and pursued professional racing after graduating, and he has since become one of the best riders the United States has ever produced. The issue is not age or timing. The issue is perception. To change that perception, we need to strengthen both the organization and the competitive level of collegiate cycling so athletes feel confident that college is a legitimate step forward, not a detour.

The second part of this topic is bridging the gap between collegiate cycling and professional racing. Very few athletes will graduate from college and immediately step into a WorldTour contract or a World Cup start line. That jump is simply too large in the current system. To close it, we need more professional development teams and more UCI-sanctioned racing within the United States.

USA Cycling has just announced the return of an initiative aimed directly at this problem. As you might remember from my recent interview with Eric Bennett at USA Cycling, this week he announced the revival of the Collegiate All-Star Program, described as “a development opportunity that recognizes top athletes and offers them the chance to compete with a composite team in a prestigious U.S. stage race with elite-level support from USA Cycling.”

Ultimately, we need to recognize that the short- to medium-term goal is simple: produce more American professional cyclists, period. Star status is a nice-to-have, but it cannot be the priority. Growing the sport through sustainable programs has to come first, because without a deeper base of professionals, long-term success and global relevance are impossible.

Offsetting a cultural shift

Battling the broader cultural shift away from higher education is largely outside the control of collegiate cycling. What is within reach is ensuring that cycling programs do not add to the already heavy financial burden of attending college. This is where NCAA classification could play a meaningful role, introducing regulations that prioritize the student-athlete and reduce the financial barriers to participation.

Collegiate cycling can also take cues from Fort Lewis, which does an exceptional job of keeping cycling fun, even at the highest levels of competition. Fort Lewis’ all-inclusive varsity structure brings new riders into an environment where they learn alongside more experienced peers while still benefiting from professional coaching and resources. The result is simple but powerful: more people stay in the sport longer, and natural talent is identified and nurtured that might otherwise be overlooked in a purely club-based model.

Mountain biking

To be honest, I wasn’t sure where to fit this into the piece, so it deserves its own section. I’ve previously argued that mountain biking may be the most viable discipline for creating viewable content that can help grow cycling in the United States. Ian echoed that sentiment, adding that mountain biking may also be the discipline best positioned to make the leap to NCAA classification first.

The reasons are straightforward. Mountain biking is currently the most popular cycling discipline at the youth and collegiate levels, it emphasizes individual competition rather than complex team dynamics, and it carries growing mainstream relevance. The upcoming Olympic Games in Los Angeles only strengthen that case, especially with American riders like Riley Amos and Christopher Blevins expected to contend for gold.

Mountain biking already has the participation base, competitive structure, and cultural momentum that make it the clearest entry point for collegiate cycling’s next phase of growth.

Marching orders

Fort Lewis is arguably the premier collegiate cycling program in the United States, operating with a unique structure that continues to produce elite talent. Ian experienced the program firsthand as a student-athlete, went on to build a professional racing career, and now draws on that experience to develop the next generation of riders at Fort Lewis.

His inside perspective on collegiate cycling revealed important nuances that must be addressed if we want to grow and strengthen collegiate competition nationwide. Fort Lewis is setting a leading example of what’s possible, offering a model other programs can learn from and giving me even more optimism about the future of collegiate racing and development in the United States.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Subscribe now

The very first feature piece I ever wrote for Built on Bikes was with Natascha den Ouden, the founder of the women’s WorldTour team AG Insurance–Soudal. That conversation centered on the structural development challenges facing women’s professional cycling, particularly the historic imbalance between the three tiers of professional road racing (take a look at that article where I breakdown the three tiers of pro racing). At the time, third-tier Continental teams were, in some cases, racing directly against top-tier WorldTour teams. The result was a distorted competitive environment that did not allow riders to progress at a natural pace before reaching the highest level of the sport.

When we shifted the conversation to women’s racing in the United States, Natascha pointed out an additional and uniquely American problem. The U.S. does not offer strong scouting or development opportunities because the style of pack racing differs so dramatically from Europe. As a result, American women face a double barrier to turning professional. Not only is the domestic racing ecosystem underdeveloped, but relocating to Europe is effectively mandatory for career progression. By failing to build credible developmental pathways at home, the United States is leaving significant talent untapped.

Women’s cycling is growing rapidly on a global scale, but especially in the United States with the rise of gravel racing and a broader surge in endurance sports participation. While the U.S. still lacks clear developmental pathways for men to reach the WorldTour, the men’s side of the sport has existed long enough that the ecosystem is relatively established. There is at least a stable group of American teams spread across the three professional tiers.

Women’s cycling presents a very different opportunity. While American representation in the men’s WorldTour remains limited and difficult to expand, the women’s WorldTour is far more open to new sources of talent. As Natascha noted, there is a clear lack of depth across the three tiers of professional women’s road racing in Europe. That reality creates a rare opening. With the right investment in development, the United States has a real chance to position itself as one of the dominant countries in the women’s WorldTour rather than a peripheral contributor.

The United States already has strong representation in the women’s peloton, but there is real potential to expand that talent pool to rival cycling-obsessed nations like Belgium and the Netherlands. The question is not whether the athletes exist, but how we build a system that consistently identifies, develops, and supports them. The real challenge is figuring out how to make that happen.

Two possible routes

As I see it, there are two paths that lead to more American women reaching the WorldTour in a way that is both successful and sustainable.

First, we can create racing environments and courses in the United States that more closely resemble those in Europe.

Second, we can build out the professional development pipeline by adding more UCI Continental and Pro teams based in the United States.

In a perfect world, both happen. Realistically, though, the first path does not exist without the second. Road racing in the United States has shrunk dramatically, and it is unreasonable to expect a meaningful expansion of UCI races without a strong base of domestic teams to compete in them. Right now, we simply do not have a mature ecosystem of Continental and Pro teams capable of supporting a robust U.S. calendar or consistently sending riders to Europe.

That said, a fully built-out American race calendar is not a prerequisite for sustainable development. In my view, simply increasing the number of U.S.-based Continental and Pro teams would quickly create a viable pathway to greater American relevance in the women’s WorldTour. In today’s piece, we will explore how more Continental and Pro teams in the United States could lead to WorldTour dominance.

The current situation in the U.S.

I’ve already talked at length about the three tiers of UCI-sanctioned professional racing, but how many women’s teams currently operate under a U.S. license with rosters that are majority American? As of the 2026 season, the United States has two Women’s WorldTour teams, zero Pro teams, and one Continental team.

Compare that to the men who have one WorldTour team, two Pro teams, and eight Continental teams. It certainly seems like the men’s ecosystem follows my suggestion, just with limited success. Again, that limited success is due to much deeper development pipelines globally that don’t result in Continental teams racing against WorldTour teams.

Circling back to the women, the number of teams in the United States actually isn’t terrible when compared to other countries. Belgium, one of the most historic cycling nations in the world, currently has two WorldTour teams, one Pro team, and three Continental teams. By comparison, the United States is only slightly behind, and in theory should be capable of matching or even outnumbering most nations given its size and talent pool.

For the remainder of this piece, I want to focus specifically on increasing the number of women’s Continental teams in the United States and why I believe that would lead to stronger, more consistent representation in the European peloton.

Why more Continental teams?

As a reminder, WorldTour teams often look to Continental and Pro level teams as primary scouting grounds for rising talent. Having a strong base of Continental and Pro teams is essential for increasing the visibility of American riders to top level programs.

Beyond talent identification, the second and third tiers of professional racing provide greater parity in physical ability, which leads to more dynamic and meaningful competition. These environments better simulate the tactics and structure of WorldTour racing, just at a slower overall pace. That allows riders to develop technical and tactical skills against peers of a similar level, rather than racing purely for survival at the top tier.

As Natascha pointed out in my first article, until 2026, when the UCI made it illegal, there were races where Continental teams were forced to compete consistently against Pro and WorldTour teams. This imbalance severely limited meaningful development and highlighted the need for clearer separation between tiers. Continental teams will still compete against Pro teams in .1 and .2 races, but this structure mirrors the rules found in men’s racing. In those races, the skill gap will still be small enough for competitive racing.

*.1 and .2 races refer to classifications that determine UCI regulations limiting the amount of Pro and Continental teams in a given race.

When looking at the United States, I suggest bolstering our Continental team footprint because Continental teams are the “easiest” type of team to start and operate (more on this later). Beyond lower startup inertia, Continental teams can still race against higher level Pro teams, but without the cost and logistical commitments required for Pro classification.

I feel obligated to say that stronger youth development pipelines, particularly more robust collegiate programs, will only strengthen a healthy Continental ecosystem. More importantly though, by increasing the number of Continental teams, we would be building a far stronger and more accessible bridge to professional racing for women than currently exists.

As we dig deeper into the “why” behind my push for more Continental teams, my hypothesis rests on three key pillars. Ultimately, Continental teams could be valuable assets for the United States because they:

• Offer the lowest barrier to entry financially for owners and sponsors
  

• Provide the most flexibility in scheduling and race calendars
  

• Serve as a bridge for less experienced American riders to transition into European racing

A flexible entry point

Starting a women’s continental team is by no means easy, but it is much more doable than forming a Pro team or hoping more American women find their own way to the European peloton. Here’s why.

Lower financial and operational barriers

Any women’s Continental team licensed in the United States must go through USA Cycling to meet the administrative requirements for UCI registration. Conveniently, USAC clearly lists every requirement needed to form a registered women’s Continental team.

Starting with finances, there are four essential fees required for registration:

• $975 to Waugh & Goodwin, LLP, the accounting firm USAC partners with\
  

• €7,150 to the UCI for registration and anti-doping contributions
  

• $3,500 to USA Cycling for U.S. registration
  

• A bank guarantee, determined by auditors, with a minimum of €20,000 or 15% of the combined salaries of riders and staff, whichever is higher

Assuming the minimum bank guarantee, the administrative cost of forming a Continental team comes out to roughly $37,000. That is a good amount of money, but in exchange for the ability to race against top Continental and Pro teams in Europe, it is relatively modest.

Technically, wages are not required for UCI Women’s Continental Teams. But we are not living in the stone ages, and if the goal is to build U.S. cycling with any level of respect or sustainability, paying riders and staff matters. So let’s make some realistic salary assumptions.

The minimum roster size is eight riders. Let’s also assume a staff of four. No one is getting rich, but we’ll assume annual salaries of $60,000 for riders and $70,000 for staff. Finally, let’s be very budget conscious with travel and race expenses and allocate $400,000 for the season. We’ll also assume the team has secured bike and equipment sponsors, meaning those costs are covered.

All in, the total cost to get this hypothetical team off the ground comes to approximately $1.2 million.

That is a lot of money, no question. But in the context of startup capital for a legitimate business, it is not astronomical. There are plenty of assumptions baked into this estimate, but I think it’s reasonable to believe that, with intent and coordination, three or even four Continental teams could be created for roughly this level of investment. I’ll get into how that might happen later.

I can’t provide exact comparisons, but some gravel teams already exceed this budget with fewer riders. If we can justify those investments, we can justify investing in women’s development in the United States. Finally, it’s worth noting that registration itself is not a long process. If riders and staff are already identified, UCI registration typically takes about three months from start to finish.

Flexible scheduling

In WorldTour racing, teams are required to attend all WorldTour-level events, with the ability to miss only one. In Continental competition, there is no fixed requirement for how many races a team must participate in during a season. This allows teams to operate on leaner budgets and prioritize competitions that offer the best opportunities for rider development and results.

If budgets are constrained, an American Continental team would not even be required to race in Europe, although that is the central goal of this plan. That scheduling flexibility can actually help American teams gain visibility in the European peloton. European UCI races are invite-only and often have team composition requirements, which means teams from the United States are frequently deprioritized and not guaranteed an invite.

At present, the U.S. has only one women’s Continental team. If that team were invited to a European race but could not attend, the United States would lose its only opportunity for representation at that event. With multiple teams, another could step in and fill that slot.

The other major benefit of flexible scheduling is the freedom for riders to compete across disciplines to raise the team’s visibility and earn UCI points. A 2026 rule change allows riders registered on road teams to earn UCI points for their road team by competing in other disciplines, further strengthening the case for this model.

A realistic skill environment

As Natascha mentioned, European teams are often cautious about American riders out of concern that they lack experience racing and positioning within a large peloton. We have, of course, seen exceptions, such as Kristen Faulkner joining the sport late and finding success, but that path is not the norm, nor should it be.

The Continental level gives skilled American riders the opportunity to hone these abilities in an environment that is better suited to teaching them. The United States already produces riders who are strong enough to compete at the Pro and WorldTour levels, but without the chance to learn the tactical and situational nuances of peloton racing, their likelihood of long-term success is lower.

By strengthening the Continental level, the U.S. talent pool becomes far less constrained. There is no shortage of capable riders, and we could confidently fill multiple Continental team rosters with athletes who have the physical tools and the potential to develop into WorldTour-caliber professionals.

In conclusion, Continental teams offer the lowest barrier to entry into professional road racing from both a skill and organizational standpoint. They expand the talent pool in the United States and, just as importantly, ensure that talent has a place to develop and showcase its abilities. Combined with collegiate cycling, Continental teams allow women who are just entering the sport to race alongside athletes who may have found cycling later in life. That dynamic creates an opportunity to build one of the most comprehensive and mature development environments in women’s cycling.

All of this sounds promising, but it raises a critical question: how do we make it work financially? Especially when, as Natascha pointed out, Continental teams receive little to no airtime in Europe and virtually none in the United States. If visibility is limited, how do we convince sponsors, investors, and stakeholders that there is real value in supporting this kind of venture?

There’s always a pitch

Remember when I said gravel teams often have larger budgets than Continental teams? That disparity exists almost entirely because of visibility. If Continental racing has low exposure compared to the WorldTour, why would a brand or individual choose to sponsor a team? And how could a team operating at that level realistically convince them there is value?

Much like my idea of securing outside funding to make cycling an NCAA sport, the answer comes down to how the opportunity is pitched. To do that successfully, we need to:

• Highlight the lack of opportunity for women in the current Continental landscape
  

• Be honest about lower visibility in the short term
  

• Emphasize the upside of developing the next successful American WorldTour rider

Even if the bulk of opportunity ultimately exists in the WorldTour peloton, Continental teams can use that reality to their advantage by building it directly into their story. These teams would be on the front lines developing the next wave of American talent that could eventually break through at the WorldTour level. If a Continental team identifies, develops, and enables the next American star, that narrative alone becomes powerful marketing for a small program.

Scheduling flexibility is another underrated asset. Road racing in the United States may not command the attention it once did, but gravel and mountain biking continue to thrive. Multi-discipline riders can represent their team at those events, extending the team’s visibility beyond traditional road racing and helping build a brand that resonates across disciplines.

We have already seen with teams like Project Echelon that building a team around a clear mission can be an effective marketing tool in itself. If a team is able to pay riders a living wage and operate within a defined geographic region, it can become a pillar of its local community, both within cycling and beyond it. Proximity to collegiate programs only strengthens this effect and creates a natural recruiting pipeline.

The list could go on, but the flexibility afforded to Continental teams should not be viewed as a weakness. It is an opportunity to create a team with a compelling identity and purpose, one that may ultimately generate more fan interest than a traditional road team whose only story is competitive success.

Finding the right path to relevance and visibility

I’ve said it before, but I spitball a lot of ideas in this newsletter. That’s the point, and it’s something we need more of in cycling, especially in the United States. If we want relevance and visibility on the world stage, there are countless paths we could take. So far, though, we’ve largely stuck to traditional road development models.

Those traditional pathways have produced limited results for men and, in many cases, barely exist for women. Like any emerging business frontier, women’s racing presents enormous opportunity, but it requires people willing to take real risks. If we want a reliable and sustainable professional pathway for women in the United States, people and brands will need to step forward and help build it.

I genuinely believe the United States could become the dominant nation in women’s cycling within the next ten years. The talent is already here. What’s missing is the base. We need to start building it now and give that talent a place to develop.

Continental teams represent the path of least resistance. They offer a realistic, scalable way to create opportunity while also telling compelling stories that can elevate the brand value of an American team far beyond that of a typical European Continental program. It’s hard not to be inspired by what four new Continental teams, thirty-two talented female athletes, and under $10 million in total investment could do for us as a cycling nation.

A message that goes far beyond cycling

The past week, and months, have been very difficult for many of the people who call America home. Many citizens have lost their lives, and on January 24, Alex Pretti was murdered by ICE agents while practicing his 1st and 2nd Amendment rights and while protecting a fellow community member.

Alex was a dedicated ICU nurse who made his living by providing care and respect to our veterans, many of whom have risked their lives in World War II fighting the same hateful ideologies that Alex was standing up against. Alex was also a member of his local cycling community in Minnesota.

My platform here is limited, but I think it’s everyone’s duty to use the platform they have to confront hate and embrace humanity. We need to speak out against injustice and show that hatred and bigotry will never win.

Since my platform is within the world of cycling, I thought the best thing I could do is highlight members of the Minnesota cycling community that you can support in these dark times. I especially want to highlight Alex’s local bike shop, Angry Catfish Bicycle. Head to their Instagram, which is linked below, to see the dozens of unity rides that are being organized across the United States and the world tomorrow, January 31.

Angry Catfish Bicycle
Instagram

Salsa Bicycles
Instagram

Wolf Tooth Components
Instagram

Stay safe,

Kyle Dawes

In an early edition of Built on Bikes, I examined how Pas Normal Studios has taken a steady, disciplined approach to brand growth. I contrasted that strategy with the increasingly erratic financial performance of Rapha, a legacy brand in the premium cycling apparel space that has been on a downward trajectory for several years. I still stand by my conclusion from that piece. Rapha needed to take decisive action to stabilize the business. It appears the leadership at Rapha agreed.

Since that article was published, Rapha has made a series of moves that suggest a far more aggressive and unsentimental approach to regaining its position at the top of the premium apparel market. In the months that followed, the brand has:

• Become the apparel partner of USA Cycling

• Closed five global clubhouses that function as retail locations, four of them in the United States

• Ended its long standing sponsorship of both the men’s and women’s EF Education WorldTour teams

• Announced a strategic shift toward the U.S. market, increased emphasis on off-road cycling, and a goal of achieving positive EBITDA by 2027

In an interview with BikeRadar, newly appointed CEO Fran Millar noted that the United States currently accounts for roughly 20 percent of Rapha’s global business. Rapha remains the largest brand in the premium cycling apparel category, but the rise of competitors like MAAP, Pas Normal Studios, and Velocio has forced the company to confront several years of weak financial performance and slowing momentum.

That is what makes the renewed focus on the United States so interesting. If the U.S. represents only one fifth of Rapha’s revenue, why double down here instead of refocusing on Europe or accelerating growth in emerging markets like Asia? At the same time, the closure of four U.S. Rapha clubhouses creates the impression that Rapha is pulling back from the American market rather than investing further into it.

This piece is not an attempt to judge whether each individual decision Rapha has made is correct. Frankly, that question isn’t that interesting to me. What I am more interested in is whether this strategic shift toward the United States reflects a genuine growth opportunity for cycling domestically, or whether it represents another risky bet by a brand under pressure. If Rapha is right, it may signal untapped potential in the U.S. cycling market. If they are wrong, it could reinforce the idea that meaningful growth here remains elusive.

Why look at Rapha?

As always, I’ll caveat this by saying that everything here is my opinion, and I could be completely wrong. This question is a difficult one to answer. Can the strategic pivot of a single company really tell us anything meaningful about the potential of the U.S. cycling market? The honest answer is yes and no.

Viewed narrowly, Rapha is just one data point. But it is an important one. Rapha remains one of the largest apparel brands in cycling and, since its acquisition by the Walton family, has become more deeply embedded in the American cycling ecosystem. That context matters.

It is not surprising to see smaller, high-growth brands like Pas Normal Studios and MAAP investing heavily in the United States. They are a fraction of Rapha’s size, and the U.S. is the largest consumer market in the world. For emerging brands, that represents a significant opportunity to capture and steal market share.

Rapha’s situation is fundamentally different. As a much larger company facing real financial pressure, its strategic decisions are unlikely to be made lightly or opportunistically. If the goal is a return to sustainable growth, Rapha will need meaningful momentum to reverse several years of underperformance. A substantial bet on the United States suggests the company believes there is upside here that is not immediately obvious to the average consumer.

Only time will tell whether that belief proves correct. For the purposes of this piece, however, Rapha provides a unique and useful lens through which to examine the current state and potential of the American cycling market.

How do we determine if the hype is real?

If we are going to use Rapha as a lens into the wider U.S. market, then it becomes critical to understand how and why these strategic decisions are being made. What are Rapha’s executives seeing in the United States? Is this a targeted push to stabilize the business, or a broader bet that the U.S. cycling market is on the verge of explosive growth? The answer to that question will tell us far more about market signals than any single press quote ever could.

How do we gain insight into Rapha’s decision making process beyond what its CEO has said in interviews? Simple, we will have to think like a strategy consultant.

This approach goes against much of what I have historically argued for when it comes to growing cycling in the United States. I have always emphasized storytelling, cultural investment, and long term foundation building. Strategy consulting firms, on the other hand, are known for prioritizing numbers, operational efficiency, and profitability above all else. Identify bad business practices, cut unprofitable initiatives, and reallocate resources toward activities that move the balance sheet in the right direction.

Viewed through that lens, Rapha’s recent decisions begin to make more sense. The initiatives being cut are the same ones that have traditionally carried the brand’s storytelling and cultural weight. That tradeoff aligns closely with a classic consulting mindset. It is entirely plausible that Rapha has either hired a strategy consulting firm or adopted a similar internal framework to restructure its operations and reset expectations.

To be clear, I do not like seeing Rapha clubhouses close or storytelling platforms disappear. There is real cultural loss in those decisions. But there is also an argument that this kind of blunt, black and white approach is an attempt to rebuild the foundations of the business. Stability has to come before new ambitions.

If Rapha is able to regain financial footing and return to sustainable growth, there is every reason to believe the storytelling that helped define the brand will return, and potentially with even greater impact. We may not like the approach in the moment, but the hope is that it pays dividends over the long term.

Thinking like a consultant

I’m not a strategy consultant, but there are well-established consulting frameworks we can use to try to make sense of Rapha’s recent decision making. One of the most widely used is the BCG Matrix, developed by the Boston Consulting Group.

At its core, the BCG Matrix is a simple way to break down a company’s operations and evaluate where capital, attention, and resources should be allocated to improve financial and operational performance. It maps products or business units across two variables: market share and market growth. Together, those variables create four quadrants that categorize how different parts of a business contribute to its overall health.

Dogs:

Low market share in low-growth markets. These are often the products or initiatives that get cut in order to free up capital and reduce operational drag.

Question Marks:

Low market share in high-growth markets. These areas require heavy investment and carry risk. With the right execution they can become Stars, but without it they often slide into Dogs.

Cash Cows:

High market share in low-growth markets. These businesses generate more cash than they consume and often fund experimentation or growth elsewhere in the company.

Stars:

High market share in high-growth markets. They are expensive to maintain but, if growth continues, can eventually mature into Cash Cows.

Using this framework, we can attempt to place Rapha’s key operations and strategic initiatives into the matrix and better understand the logic behind recent cuts, investments, and shifts in focus. Once that picture comes into view, we can begin to extrapolate what Rapha’s leadership may be seeing in the U.S. market and whether their strategy reflects genuine opportunity or calculated necessity.

The Dogs

If we are going to examine the weakest links in Rapha’s business model, there are two areas that stand out as high cost and low reward.

Clubhouses

Clubhouses became a core part of Rapha’s identity and were pioneers in using community engagement to grow cycling and establish deep brand loyalty. It is undeniable that clubhouses played a critical role in Rapha’s early growth in the United States, particularly through the RCC membership program. They gave cyclists a physical space to gather, ride, and connect, while also serving as premium retail locations. Over time, they evolved into a global network that RCC members could rely on when traveling or shopping, reinforcing Rapha’s position as more than just an apparel brand.

As the cycling landscape has evolved, however, it appears that at least in the United States some clubhouses have begun to deliver diminishing returns, both financially and culturally. Much like the rise of run clubs, platforms like Strava have made it easy for anyone to organize group rides and build communities without the need for a centralized brand hub. In most major metropolitan areas where Rapha clubhouses exist, riders now have an abundance of group rides, events, and social scenes to choose from. Rapha no longer controls the narrative or infrastructure around physical community building in the way it once did.

At the same time, clubhouses are retail locations at their core. In the U.S., they are concentrated in cities with extremely high real estate costs and rising labor expenses. In the early days, those costs could be justified by the outsized marketing impact and cultural relevance the clubhouses delivered. As the market has become more saturated and community-driven cycling less centralized, it’s unlikely that many of these locations could continue to justify their operating costs on a purely financial basis.

It’s awful that we are losing four clubhouses in the United States. Full stop. That loss will be felt by local cycling communities and longtime Rapha loyalists. That said, shuttering these locations does not necessarily weaken Rapha’s position in the United States. In fact, it may do the opposite. Closing cash intensive clubhouses frees up significant capital that can be redeployed into new initiatives with higher impact, better scalability, and clearer paths to profitability in the U.S. market.

WorldTour affiliation

Rapha’s partnership with the EF Education WorldTour team is another example of an initiative that delivered massive early upside before producing diminishing returns. When the partnership debuted, Rapha was immediately positioned as the brand with the most distinctive kits in the WorldTour. The bold designs and prominent use of pink, aligned perfectly with EF Education’s branding, stood out in a conservative peloton and quickly became a fan favorite.

The partnership reached its peak when Rapha and EF Education collaborated with PALACE, the London based skateboarding brand. By introducing streetwear aesthetics into professional cycling kits, Rapha cemented its status as the most culturally relevant apparel sponsor in the WorldTour. The collaboration pushed EF Education into the spotlight, making the team instantly recognizable even as on-road results remained inconsistent.

By 2025, however, the novelty had clearly worn off. What was once disruptive had become normalized. Eye-catching kits alone were no longer enough to drive incremental sales, particularly in mature European markets where Rapha already had strong brand awareness and where overall cycling growth had begun to plateau. The partnership remained expensive, but the marginal returns appeared to be shrinking.

Once again, by cutting this partnership, Rapha will free up significant capital and operational resources that can be reallocated to new endeavors.

Cash Cows

There could certainly be more, but the only true cash cow I can clearly identify is European road cycling apparel. While I just argued that sponsoring a WorldTour team had effectively become a dog, marketing and sales are not the same thing. WorldTour representation may no longer be driving meaningful incremental growth in Europe, but that does not mean demand for Rapha’s road apparel in the region has collapsed or become insignificant.

We know the United States accounts for roughly 20 percent of Rapha’s business. It is reasonable to assume that South America, Africa, and Australia contribute relatively small shares of revenue, even when combined. That narrows the remaining revenue concentration to Europe and Asia. While Asia represents a growing opportunity, Europe remains the region where cycling participation, cultural relevance, and premium apparel adoption are strongest.

Europe is still where Rapha has its deepest brand equity. The company has the recognition, distribution, and credibility to maintain strong sales without the need for aggressive marketing spend or dramatic rebrands of its road collections.

The strategic play, then, is straightforward. Continue executing in Europe, protect market share, and use that steady cash flow to fund higher-risk, higher-upside bets elsewhere. Even as competition intensifies from brands like MAAP, Pas Normal Studios, and Velocio, Rapha’s scale and legacy still allow it to outperform these challengers in absolute revenue.

The risk here is complacency. Without some level of reinvestment, brand erosion in Europe is inevitable over the long term. But in the near to medium term, European road cycling apparel remains Rapha’s financial foundation, providing the stability required to support the broader strategic reset now underway.

Stars

With stars usually being the products or segments that brands focus their attention to spur growth, this section is pretty straightforward and has either been explicitly defined by Rapha or alluded to by recent strategic decisions.

U.S. enthusiast market and off-road disciplines

I want to caveat this segment by acknowledging that this remains a relatively narrow segment within the broader cycling market and one that ties closely to what I will discuss later in the question marks section. That said, the core idea is simple. The population of cycling enthusiasts in the United States, particularly within off road disciplines, represents a strong foothold from which Rapha can expand.

I have written about this extensively in previous editions of Built on Bikes, but off road cycling is currently the most effective channel for converting Americans into committed cyclists. These are people who ride consistently, invest in equipment, follow the sport, and often participate in racing or organized events. It is a developing market that requires meaningful investment to gain visibility and credibility, and while it may not immediately translate into mass volume sales, it is where long term loyalty is being built.

To date, Rapha has not been lagging in this segment. If anything, it has been one of the most visible premium brands in U.S. off road racing. Early signals of this strategy included sponsorships of athletes like Sarah Sturm, Keegan Swenson, and Colin Strickland. That investment only deepened over time with the formation of a dedicated off road team and significant marketing spend behind Lachlan Morton’s endurance projects, which helped redefine what modern cycling storytelling could look like.

More recently, Rapha has continued to reinforce this position through its partnership with USA Cycling, sponsorship of Kate Courtney and the She Sends Foundation, and the signing of Cam Jones, the 2025 Life Time Grand Prix overall winner. These are not reactive moves or attempts to regain relevance. They are the continuation of a long running strategy that has quietly positioned Rapha at the center of elite off road cycling in the United States.

Rapha is not trying to make up lost ground here. While brands like Pas Normal Studios and MAAP may have taken the lead in fashion forward aesthetics, Rapha arguably has deeper and more credible representation within U.S. off road cycling, both among professional athletes and engaged consumers. The brand is already embedded where influence matters most. If Rapha begins reinvesting more aggressively into sponsorship, product development, and targeted marketing within this segment, the upside could be significant. The groundwork has already been laid, and that is what makes this segment so strategically compelling.

Direct-to-consumer E-commerce

This star channel is not exclusive to the United States, but it remains critical to Rapha’s revised strategy for the American market.

Rapha has shuttered several clubhouses in the United States, but that does not mean it will stop selling to the customers who once shopped there. With much of the fixed cost associated with operating physical retail now removed, Rapha has the opportunity to reallocate capital toward strengthening its direct to consumer infrastructure and logistics.

Rather than having marketing dollars tied up in high rent locations in a handful of cities, Rapha can invest more heavily in digital acquisition and retention. Online advertising allows the brand to target cycling enthusiasts across the entire country, not just those within riding distance of a clubhouse. This significantly expands reach while improving efficiency.

At the same time, reinvesting in e-commerce, fulfillment, and customer experience reduces friction for American consumers who already view Rapha as a premium brand but may not have had consistent access to physical stores. If executed well, this shift does not weaken Rapha’s presence in the United States. It modernizes it

Question Marks

This is where the real question mark of this article comes from. There are two big question marks for Rapha in their new strategy.

The broader U.S. cycling market

The broader American cycling market, beyond core enthusiasts, does not currently have a dominant apparel player. Once you look past people who view cycling as a serious form of exercise or competition, the majority of riders in the U.S. are commuters. That market is already being addressed successfully by e bike brands, helmet manufacturers, and accessories companies. Dedicated cycling apparel, however, has largely failed to penetrate it.

The reason is simple. Most Americans who use a bike as transportation are riding short distances and do not want to change clothes when they arrive. They wear normal street or work clothing, not performance oriented cycling kits. From the outside, it appears the apparel industry has either failed to crack this use case or has decided the margins are not worth the effort.

From a BCG Matrix perspective, this is where the risk becomes clear. Rapha’s lifestyle collections currently trail far behind its performance apparel in both sales and adoption. In today’s state, that category looks like a dog rather than a star. Pursuing the commuter and lifestyle market at scale would therefore require meaningful investment into a segment that has not yet proven it can drive growth for the brand.

Olympic and national partnerships

With their new focus on the United States, one of the most significant moves by Rapha was becoming the official apparel partner of USA Cycling. I’ve seen mixed reviews of the partnership, but it is far too soon to pass judgment because we don’t know the exact strategic reasoning behind the decision.

We know Rapha is prioritizing the United States, but who is this partnership actually targeting? It’s reasonable to assume that the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles play a role. Rapha, a British company, is likely hoping for a similar effect to what the 2012 London Olympics had on British cycling. After strong performances by the national team, Britain saw a noticeable increase in cycling participation and enthusiasm. Rapha didn’t supply Team GB’s kits at the time, but it’s hard to imagine that a similar moment in the U.S. wouldn’t result in a meaningful sales boost if they were.

I’m almost certain this is the question mark Rapha believes could become a star.

Framing the matrix

Overall, Rapha has plenty to work with as it begins its new American-focused strategy. It appears the company has already identified two major dogs in the business and eliminated them to free up significant capital to reinvest in stars and question marks. It is slightly concerning that there is only one major cash cow, but it is also the foundation on which Rapha’s entire empire is built. In the near term, it feels like a reliable base that should not require significant resources to continue generating steady revenue.

Rapha has also identified a clear star in the American enthusiast and off-road markets and has been investing in these segments for years. The brand is now well positioned to turn this star into a smaller but still meaningful cash cow. Finally, two major question marks loom over Rapha’s new strategy, bringing us back to the core question: does Rapha’s investment in the American enthusiast market represent a real opportunity to grow cycling in the United States?

Opportunity comes in all shapes and sizes

With all of that analysis behind us, I think I’m able to answer my overarching question about growth opportunities in American cycling. Rapha’s investment in the United States does signal a real opportunity to grow cycling domestically, but it falls short of a full cultural revolution. Ultimately, I think Rapha is focused on growing and reclaiming dominance among cycling enthusiasts.

I highly doubt the Olympics will spur more towns and cities to adopt bike-forward policies like Bentonville, Arkansas, but I do think it could result in the largest cultural shift in American cycling to date. It’s a narrower market, but with off-road and adventure-based cycling firmly on the rise in the United States, the Olympics could push more people to research cycling as a serious hobby. That, in turn, would lead them to discover entry points into these popular disciplines that Rapha is actively targeting. If those consumers have already seen Rapha on their screens being used by top athletes, trust will already be built in Rapha as a go-to brand.

It’s a long-term play, but if Rapha is able to reclaim its position as the dominant performance- and culture-driven brand it once was, this time rooted in the United States and alternative cycling disciplines, I think it will have created the foothold necessary to eventually break into the wider U.S. consumer market.

From a business perspective, this is the strongest Rapha has looked in years in terms of having a clear, concrete strategy to return to success. Out of all the markets and channels they could have pursued for growth, they chose the United States and alternative, emerging cycling disciplines as their primary focus.

I’m fully aware of my own bias given my desire to see professional cycling grow in the United States, but I do think Rapha’s reorganization lends real credibility to the idea that meaningful professional growth here is possible.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

This week marks another installment of my Foundations series, where I examine the forces shaping the next generation of cyclists in the United States. With two articles already dedicated to this topic, I’m once again turning my focus to collegiate cycling.

In the first piece, I spoke with Sarah Sturm to better understand the importance of a strong collegiate ecosystem. Most recently, I explored the possibility of collegiate cycling transitioning from a purely club-based model to an NCAA sport.

In that NCAA-focused article, I outlined several barriers standing in cycling’s way, including the lack of revenue the sport would generate, challenges around talent identification, and questions about sanctioning. One organization loomed large throughout that discussion: USA Cycling (USAC). With cycling already meeting many of the prerequisites to become an NCAA sport, I found myself wondering why USAC had not taken the leap. Was the hesitation rooted in governance concerns, budget constraints, or something else entirely?

This week, we’ll begin to fill in those blind spots. By speaking directly with USAC, we’ll gain a clearer picture of the current state of collegiate cycling and a more grounded understanding of what would actually need to happen for the sport to transition to the NCAA.

For the first time in this series, we get a look inside USAC itself, specifically where collegiate cycling fits within its day-to-day operations and, more importantly, what it would take to meaningfully elevate the collegiate cycling landscape.

To get this inside perspective, I spoke with Eric Bennett, the current Director of Membership at USA Cycling. In his role overseeing membership registration across all age groups, combined with seven years of experience as a professional cyclist, Eric is well positioned to offer meaningful insight into the collegiate landscape.

Understanding USAC’s reality and priorities

USA Cycling acts as the governing body for the majority of cycling events in the United States and is responsible for organizing all national and Olympic teams. As I learned in a previous conversation with Micah Rice, USAC’s budget is remarkably limited relative to the scope of that responsibility. To put it in perspective, Micah estimated USAC’s annual budget at roughly $16 million.

With such lean operating parameters, USAC is forced to focus on high priority initiatives that generate the greatest upside and drive new membership growth. Historically, and especially with the LA 2028 Olympic Games on the horizon, Olympic success has been the organization’s top priority. Eric made that point clear:

“At the end of the day, a national governing body is judged on Olympic success. I don’t want to speak on behalf of leadership, but more or less their scorecard is based on Olympic success.”

That focus makes sense. For many Americans, their primary exposure to cycling comes through the Tour de France and the Olympic Games. Strong Olympic performances can bring meaningful attention to a sport that often flies under the radar.

We saw that effect firsthand in 2024, when Kristen Faulkner won gold for the United States in the Olympic road race and Haley Batten earned silver in mountain biking. Those marquee results translate directly into increased visibility and, ultimately, new membership revenue for USAC. By comparison, collegiate development represents a long-term investment, one that does not offer immediate returns and, at least for now, remains a luxury USAC cannot afford.

Where does collegiate cycling fit in?

As I’ve pointed out, USAC carries a broad and complex set of responsibilities, and collegiate cycling represents a relatively small slice of that pie. When looking at current USAC membership demographics, U23 riders, the primary age group for college students, make up the smallest subset of licensed cyclists in the United States.

• Adult license holders: The largest share of memberships, but also the broadest age category

• UCI racers: Athletes racing on professional teams or competing in UCI races

• U19: Junior riders

• U23: The college age group

Collegiate cycling is not being ignored, it is simply outnumbered. The level of support the discipline currently receives is proportional to its ability to provide long term value to USAC. Eric, along with the rest of the organization, cares deeply about collegiate cycling and, by his own admission, USAC has extensively researched the possibility of becoming an NCAA sport.

We will unpack the barriers they identified shortly, but first it is important to understand USAC’s current philosophy toward collegiate cycling and how it fits within the organization’s broader priorities.

How USAC thinks about collegiate cycling

Throughout my conversation with Eric, it was clear that he and many others within USAC would love it if collegiate cycling became an NCAA sport. Given current operational constraints, however, they are focused on doing the best they can with the resources available. That raises a key question: how is USAC thinking about collegiate cycling today, and how are they using their limited resources to move the discipline forward as a developmental pipeline?

With time and funding constrained, Eric said the immediate priority is stability, both within collegiate cycling and across USAC as a whole. That focus is a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed the fragility of many collegiate club programs while also significantly depleting USAC’s funds.

At many universities, collegiate cycling clubs are sustained by a single highly motivated student. When that person graduates or steps away, the entire program can quickly unravel. That vulnerability was magnified during COVID, as Eric explained:

“We took about 100 steps back during COVID when all the universities were shut down. A lot of these programs shut down with that. Several of these programs were held together by one passionate cyclist. They build something with ten people, but when that person graduates, there’s no framework left.”

COVID also became the guiding force behind USAC’s focus on the 2028 LA Games.

“Exiting COVID, our funds were depleted. Now it’s all hands on deck for medal capability for LA.”

With that context in mind, Eric outlined how USAC is currently approaching sustainability and visibility within collegiate cycling:

“We invest a lot of energy and resources trying to make sure that those clubs that are getting off the ground have a sustainable future. Some clubs have been around for 100 years, some clubs are brand new, and that’s where we meet challenges.

We’re just trying to expose collegiate cycling as an opportunity to cyclists, whether they’re currently in the sport as a teenager or they’re in a high school league like NICA, and didn’t know they had a chance to ride a bike in college.”

The emphasis on sustainability extends beyond club programs. Even varsity cycling teams face ongoing challenges related to funding and institutional priority:

“Varsity programs are up against a lot. A lot of the varsity universities are smaller, but cycling is still considered second or third to programs like football. Their funding keeps getting pulled away.”

As the name of this series suggests, foundations matter. If cycling is going to grow domestically, those foundations need to be solid. Becoming an NCAA sport means little without a sustainable blueprint for club teams, broader awareness among incoming students, and varsity programs that are not perpetually treated as secondary to revenue-generating sports.

Why NCAA classification hasn’t been achievable

Finally, it is time to hear directly about the real challenges facing NCAA classification from someone with intimate knowledge of the situation. I have hinted at it throughout this series, but simply put, money is the single biggest barrier to cycling becoming an NCAA sport.

The cost for USAC

In previous articles, I outlined the baseline requirements for NCAA classification. What I was not able to access at the time were the financial guarantees that governing bodies are expected to provide for sports like cycling and gymnastics.

If cycling were to become an NCAA sport, the NCAA would still expect USA Cycling to continue sanctioning collegiate competition. Even under a hybrid model similar to collegiate gymnastics, the majority of the operational burden would remain with USAC.

Under this structure, the NCAA would oversee championships, eligibility, and scholarships, while USAC would retain responsibility for sanctioning most collegiate events. For the NCAA to assume oversight of an entirely new sport, additional administrative capacity is required, and that capacity must be funded by a third party. In this case, that third party would be USAC.

Eric was fully transparent about what that requirement looks like in practice. The cost of NCAA classification would be $1.8 million per year, with an initial three year commitment. After those first three years, the NCAA would continue to require the same $1.8 million annually in perpetuity. In other words, the minimum cost just to enter the NCAA system would be approximately $5.4 million.

To put that number in perspective, the $1.8 million annual fee rivals USAC’s current yearly spend on its Olympic program. If USAC is ultimately judged on Olympic success, it becomes clear why collegiate cycling sits lower on the organization’s list of priorities.

When you also consider where USAC’s revenue comes from, primarily membership dues, sanctioning fees, and donations, it is hard to see how that level of funding could be generated in the near term. At least not without fundamentally changing the organization’s financial model.

The cost for collegiate programs

USAC would not be the only organization facing steep entry costs. Universities themselves would also need to invest significant resources to create programs that meet NCAA requirements, as Eric pointed out:

“NCAA programs cost a lot of money and requires a staff. For each NCAA program, it’s multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund. I believe there’s a three-year commitment for each of the programs.”

Financial pressure would exist at every level of the collegiate cycling ecosystem. If NCAA classification is ever going to become a reality, it will require more than policy changes. It will require creativity in how those funds are sourced, structured, and sustained.

So, what’s the plan?

With USAC’s revenue sources unlikely to grow exponentially in the coming years and the Olympics still more than two years away, is NCAA classification effectively off the table for now?

The reasonable answer is possibly. My answer is hell no.

These are the facts:

• It is unlikely that USA Cycling will see a surge in revenue large enough to independently cover the cost of NCAA classification.

• In the near term, USAC’s resources are best allocated toward preparing for the 2028 Olympic Games.

• The primary battle right now is maintaining the sustainability of collegiate cycling programs, and USAC has a clear understanding of how to support that goal.

If USAC does not have the internal resources to elevate cycling to NCAA status, that does not mean the door is closed. It means the momentum would need to come from outside the organization.

Yes, USAC would ultimately need to write the check to become an NCAA sport. But that does not mean the funding must come from membership dues or sanctioning fees. As a nonprofit, USAC is able to accept donations.

The scale of funding required would be significant. Which raises the next question: is there any precedent for an effort like this actually working?

Triathlon made the jump

The closest sport to cycling within the NCAA is women’s triathlon, and until I spoke with Eric, I did not fully understand how triathlon was able to achieve NCAA classification. Like cycling, triathlon includes cycling as a core discipline, has a national governing body in the United States, and does not generate meaningful revenue at the collegiate level.

Triathlon is certainly more popular than pure road cycling, or most cycling disciplines for that matter, but that alone does not explain how it cleared the financial hurdles. So how did it happen? Does USA Triathlon have a massive pool of discretionary funding, or was there outside support that made the difference? Eric’s answer gave some insight:

“Triathlon being an NCAA program is partially funded throug donation money.”

While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact donors behind the effort, reporting from both the NCAA and Triathlon Magazine indicates that approximately $2.6 million in grant funding provided by USA Triathlon was a major catalyst. That money was distributed to universities to incentivize full adoption of the sport and to help fund division level budgets.

More than anything, women’s triathlon provides proof of concept. NCAA classification for a non revenue generating endurance sport is possible. It simply requires outside capital, coordinated leadership, and a clear case for long term sustainability.

Replicating it for cycling

When I asked Eric whether the same path was possible for cycling, his answer was a resounding yes. When USAC receives funding through donations or fundraising, Eric said that NCAA classification is “always on the list of asks.” The challenge is specificity. If donors do not explicitly designate their contributions for NCAA classification, those funds are understandably redirected toward higher priority initiatives, most notably Olympic preparation.

The goal is not to pull resources away from Olympic development or elite level programs. It is to expand the pool of funders who can make the jump to NCAA status financially viable. That means identifying individuals who:

• Are deeply passionate about cycling

• Have the financial capacity to make a meaningful contribution

• See the value of collegiate development, or can be convinced of the long term benefits NCAA classification would provide

I have already written about how wealthy families, such as the Waltons, have invested tens of millions of dollars into building cycling infrastructure and culture within their communities. Whether or not those conversations have already happened is beside the point. Minds change, and education is often the catalyst.

Through my work alongside venture capital investors, I have seen firsthand that there are many people who are both wealthy and deeply invested in cycling. This challenge needs to be approached the same way a founder approaches raising capital. Build relationships with people who understand the culture of the sport, articulate the long term value of collegiate development, and secure funding that can be explicitly allocated to pushing NCAA classification forward.

It is a big goal, but it is not an unrealistic one. With a coordinated and organized effort from third parties, the funding required to make collegiate cycling an NCAA sport could be raised far faster than most people expect.

What NCAA cycling means and what it could look like

This is entering the territory of my previous collegiate cycling pieces, but with a USAC official’s full attention, I wanted to get a more concrete sense of the impact NCAA classification could realistically have.

On the topic of talent identification and expanding the number of American professional cyclists, Eric believes the results could come quickly:

“Within one or two years [of NCAA classification], you’d probably field a couple more national team athletes from college.”

That number may sound modest, but cycling has always been a sport where a single athlete can shift public relevance overnight. We have seen that effect before.

Eric also reinforced my belief that elite talent exists far beyond traditional cycling pipelines, and that development efforts should not be limited to athletes who have been racing bikes for years. In fact, USAC is already operating with that mindset:

“We went to high schools, middle schools, and sporting events with watt bikes to do ten-second power tests. We’ve now tested over 10,000 athletes. We have one woman who’s going to make the Olympic team because of that program.”

Eric also emphasized the importance of recruiting from crossover sports like skiing, but also cautioned that NCAA expansion requires careful consideration of which cycling disciplines make the most sense at the collegiate level.

Road racing, he explained, is essential but logistically challenging. It is expensive to organize, difficult to travel for, and requires significant effort to recreate true pack racing similar to what exists in Europe. While Eric was clear that road racing cannot be excluded, he noted that mountain biking is currently far ahead in popularity. That popularity creates more immediate opportunities for collegiate adoption and program growth.

Finally, Eric pointed out that track cycling could also be a viable NCAA discipline, provided programs are built in regions with access to velodromes. Geographic reality, infrastructure, and participation trends all matter when considering how cycling could realistically take shape within the NCAA system.

The future is what we make it

Speaking with Eric was a pleasure and a truly eye opening experience. It highlighted both the harsh realities USAC faces in its day to day operations and the significant opportunities that remain untapped.

Making collegiate cycling an NCAA sport will not be easy. In fact, it will be very difficult. But difficult does not have to mean slow. If we can organize, communicate a compelling case to the right people, and build strong foundations for development, we have a real chance to create a historic moment for American cycling.

I’ve danced around the subject of storytelling in cycling in previous editions of Built on Bikes, but beyond offering suggestions to improve the impact of the limited Youtube series, Call of a Life Time, I haven’t explored the topic in depth. In the grand scheme, youth development and strong foundations will always matter most when it comes to growing the sport, but media that attracts fans and capital cannot be overlooked. Without sustained fandom and revenue in the United States, cycling will continue to rely on being scrappy rather than scalable.

The world of sports marketing changed when Netflix released the first season of the Formula 1 documentary, Drive to Survive. Formula 1 had long been a global powerhouse with significant revenue, but the motorsport consistently struggled to break through in major markets like the United States. Now, with seven seasons available on Netflix, the series has fundamentally reshaped F1’s fanbase. Live race viewership has increased by roughly 70%, and the calendar has expanded to include two additional races in the U.S., representing a shift in both interest and investment.

Many sports have attempted to replicate the success of Drive to Survive, and most have fallen short. Formula 1 provided a clear proof of concept that a narrative driven docuseries can materially grow a sport’s audience.

The Last Dance, a limited series chronicling Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls dynasty, reignited interest in a defining era of basketball and delivered a meaningful boost to the NBA during the Covid pandemic. It followed a different format to Drive to Survive, but it again showed the power of human centered storytelling in sports.

Cycling did attempt to enter the streaming arena with Netflix’s Tour de France: Unchained, a series that closely followed the Drive to Survive format. Ultimately, it failed to break through and was canceled after three seasons. The sport has also experimented with more limited docuseries, such as The Least Expected Day: Inside the Movistar Team, but those efforts largely struggled to reach audiences beyond existing cycling fans.

There is certainly a way to convey the excitement of cycling, but to date, the sport has not found its breakthrough moment. Call of a Life Time, which chronicles the Life Time Grand Prix, has helped grow interest in gravel cycling and shows that it is possible to reach audiences beyond existing fans. Still, cycling as a whole has struggled to break into the mainstream in the United States.

So why has cycling fallen short? What viable alternatives exist for growing the sport’s fanbase? And how do we finally crack the code for telling compelling, scalable stories in cycling? It starts with understanding where we’ve previously fallen short.

Addressing the elephant in the room

There is no getting around the fact that cycling had its best chance at mainstream relevance with Tour de France: Unchained (TDFU). So why did it fall short, and what can we learn from it? More importantly, does its failure mean cycling is doomed in its attempt to reach the mainstream in the United States, or does it simply mean we have not cracked the code yet?

Why it failed

According to multiple reports, the series, produced by Netflix France, delivered only average viewership and disappointing consumption in its home market. It’s likely that the revenue generated by the show failed to offset high production costs. More importantly for the sport, TDFU did not meaningfully expand cycling’s audience in key growth markets like the United States.

So why did it fall short?

Why it was not impactful

Focusing on one race: Unlike Drive to Survive, which follows an entire Formula 1 season, TDFU centered on a single event. While the Tour spans three weeks and offers multiple overlapping storylines, it still limits how deeply viewers can connect with riders on a personal level. Fans meet athletes only within the context of this one race, rather than following their successes, setbacks, and evolution across an entire season.

As a result, the series never paints a complete picture of professional cycling. It exists almost entirely within the vacuum of the Tour de France, leaving little room to explore the broader rhythms of the sport or the full arc of an athlete’s journey.

Stigma: The Tour de France is the most recognizable race in cycling. Ask someone on the street what they know about the sport and the Tour will likely be the first thing they mention. That level of notoriety should, in theory, make it an easy entry point for new audiences. In reality, I think it does the opposite.

Cycling carries a reputation for being confusing and, to non fans, boring. For viewers who have not immersed themselves in the sport or its culture, seeing a Netflix documentary built around the Tour de France may actually reinforce that stigma. The assumption becomes simple: this is going to be bland, technical, and hard to follow.

Drive to Survive succeeded because it leaned fully into drama. It did not ask viewers to understand Formula 1 before watching. Instead, it introduced the sport through conflict, personality, and stakes. Cycling, and particularly the Tour de France, has yet to be framed in that same way for a mainstream audience.

Lack of grit: For me, this is the series’ biggest detractor. The series was obviously produced to mimic the dramatic tone of Drive to Survive, but did not execute to the same level. Cycling is arguably one of the most brutal and sacrificial sports on the planet, but TDFU was only able to give a glimpse into that reality.

Focusing on grit

Most audiences do not fully grasp the level of dedication and sacrifice required to be a professional cyclist. Drive to Survive succeeded because it showed both the intensity and risk of racing at the highest level and the glamorous lifestyle that surrounds the sport. It humanized the athletes by highlighting the tension between life on the track and life off it, creating a compelling and polarizing duality.

Cycling has moments of acute intensity similar to the start line of an F1 race, but the sport is far more all-consuming in daily life. Following riders across an entire season would unlock much stronger human narratives by revealing the constant stressors that define the sport.

From leaving home at a young age to pursue development, to spending the majority of the year away from family, cycling is a hard lifestyle that often takes more than it gives. Thousands of hours of training, relentless nutritional discipline, constant travel, crash recovery, and, tragically, fatalities in the sport are all part of the reality. A documentary that authentically captures this environment while weaving in narrative tension could create deep emotional investment in the athletes themselves.

TDFU touched on many of these themes, but only scratched the surface. Viewers were introduced to the successes and struggles of riders like Tom Pidcock and Fabio Jakobsen, yet the narrative was continually pulled back into the Tour de France itself. The Tour can showcase superhuman endurance, but without the broader context of what riders endure before and beyond those three weeks, it becomes difficult for new audiences to form meaningful connections.

Any future attempt to tell cycling’s story must take a more comprehensive view of professional’s life outside of racing. Without that depth, cycling will continue to struggle to translate its intensity into lasting fan engagement.

What are viable alternatives?

Cycling is an incredibly diverse sport that spans multiple disciplines, continents, and has professional competition for both men and women. To suggest that the underwhelming reception of recent documentaries proves cycling is not built for mass engagement is shortsighted. Nearly every high profile cycling documentary to date has centered on WorldTour road racing, a discipline that is not exactly known for flashy personalities, races with constant action, or easily digestible narratives.

If the goal is to crack the code of a successful cycling documentary, the issue is not the sport itself, but the angles being chosen. There are several approaches that could dramatically improve how cycling stories resonate with broader audiences.

Span an entire season

Following teams and athletes across a full season provides a far more intimate look at the realities of the sport. It allows audiences to witness long-term arcs, including breakout performances, injuries, setbacks, and moments of sacrifice that cannot be captured within a single event. Broadening the scope beyond one race is essential if the goal is emotional investment and narrative depth.

Follow a different discipline

At this point, shifting away from WorldTour road racing may be a requirement rather than an option. Road cycling has struggled to capture mainstream attention in the United States, but other disciplines offer far more immediate appeal to new fans. World Cup mountain bike racing stands out as a prime example.

The cross country format is simple to understand. Riders complete laps on a course and the fastest competitor wins. The discipline also carries a clear action and adventure element that road cycling lacks. A series could even alternate between cross country and downhill racing, tapping into the same audience that already engages with action sports like snowboarding, skateboarding, and BMX.

Follow women’s cycling

Despite progress at the professional level, media attention and investment still overwhelmingly favors men’s racing. Outside of the pro peloton, women represent one of the fastest growing demographics in recreational cycling. Failing to tell the story of women’s cycling is a massive missed opportunity to connect with this growing demographic.

Women’s racing often produces a wider range of winners and naturally includes narratives around inequality, access, and overcoming structural barriers. Sports documentaries still skew heavily toward male audiences, so a well produced series focused on women could differentiate itself immediately, attract new viewers, and potentially drive meaningful growth in participation.

There are many alternative directions cycling media could explore, but these three stand out because they directly contrast the approaches taken in previous documentaries. More importantly, they offer a clearer and more realistic path toward expanding the sport.

What success looks like in the U.S.

It’s difficult to put a single number on what would define success for a cycling documentary in the United States. Companies like Netflix can point to profit and viewership metrics, but those measures alone fail to capture actual impact. The more important question is how much cultural momentum is needed to meaningfully expand cycling domestically.

Do we measure success through new USA Cycling licenses, increased bike sales, higher viewership of professional races, or the return of WorldTour racing to the U.S.? The answer is likely a combination of all of the above, but the earliest and most important indicator may be a shift in how the sport is perceived culturally.

Ask an American what they know about professional cycling and the response will almost always include the Tour de France and Lance Armstrong. One is an event and the other is an athlete, and that level of association is not unusual. Ask a European about American football and you will likely hear the Super Bowl and Tom Brady. The difference is that the Tour and Lance pairing no longer serves the sport well in the U.S.

Armstrong immediately triggers associations with doping, which is a real part of cycling’s history but not the story that will grow the sport today. If cycling hopes to reach a broader audience, perception must shift. Americans need to associate cycling with more than one race and one controversial figure.

The reality is the United States continues to produce elite riders across multiple disciplines, and the global racing calendar extends far beyond the Tour de France. Yet the prevailing image of cycling in America is stuck in the late 1990s and early 2000s. To move forward, the sport must shed that baggage and present a modern, expansive view of what cycling actually is.

Tying cultural perception back to measurable outcomes, a few indicators stand out as signs of domestic success:

• A modernized perception of the sport that moves beyond Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France

• Increased viewership of professional races outside of the Tour

• Broader public awareness that cycling extends to disciplines beyond road racing

• The return of more UCI sanctioned events to the U.S., including WorldTour races

A possible formula for domestic success

This section is admittedly speculative. I am not a sports marketer or media professional, but I think it would be useful to tie this discussion together by outlining the type of media that could present an alternative view of cycling and stand a better chance of connecting with domestic audiences.

The pillars of my hypothetical docuseries are:

• Focus on American athletes

• Showcase a cycling format that is easily digestible

• Follow a long enough timeframe that allows real human stories to develop

• Place meaningful emphasis on female athletes

• Establish a new identity for cycling in the United States

Considering these factors, the most direct path to success would be to follow mountain biking. If the goal is to capture the attention of a domestic audience quickly, viewers need to feel an immediate connection to the athletes and understand the competition format without explanation.

World Cup cross country mountain biking offers both. The race format is intuitive and it is currently the discipline that most clearly showcases American excellence in the sport. Christopher Blevins just delivered one of the most dominant seasons in recent memory, while Haley Batten secured a silver medal at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games. Rising talents like Riley Amos offer a clear ascent narrative, and established stars like Kate Courtney provide a compelling veteran presence.

Beyond format and cast, World Cup mountain biking has the intangibles that translate well to broader audiences. The discipline highlights grit, adventure, and sacrifice. The race circuit spans the globe, offering the same sense of legitimacy and international intrigue that fans find in Formula 1. Cross country racing also strikes the right balance of extreme fitness, technical skill, and visible action that has resonated with American sports audiences in the past.

There is also strong historical and cultural alignment. The United States has deep roots in mountain biking, and the timing could not be better. With the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games approaching and the 2030 World Championships scheduled to take place in Durango, Colorado, the sport is entering a period rich with storytelling opportunities.

Accessibility matters as well, even in subtle ways. It may sound trivial, but highlighting a discipline where athletes race on flat handlebar bikes could have a meaningful psychological impact. When Americans think of professional cycling, many still picture the Tour de France and road bikes. In everyday life, however, they are far more likely to see and ride flat bar bikes, whether as commuters or recreational riders.

For kids in particular, this distinction is important. Beyond being incredibly boring for them to watch, road cycling has equipment and bikes that kids won’t be familiar with. When a kid sees Christopher Blevins or Haley Batten charging through a rock garden on a bike that resembles their own, the sport immediately feels accessible.

If I were tasked with proposing a winning formula for a cycling docuseries in the United States, this would be my answer. It might fail. It might face production challenges I am overlooking. But without experimentation, the sport will never know which stories are capable of breaking through.

Impacts are the goal

Drive to Survive helped bring two new Formula 1 races to the United States and pushed the sport firmly into the mainstream. If a docuseries can have that level of impact for a sport that 99% of fans will never experience firsthand, cycling should be able to generate real momentum around an activity that is far more accessible to the average person.

Whether success is measured by more people on bikes, increased viewership, a stronger domestic race calendar, or a meaningful shift in public perception, any future documentary must accomplish one major goal: make cycling relatable and entertaining.

With the 2028 Olympic Games coming to Los Angeles and the 2030 Mountain Bike World Championships heading to Durango, Colorado, the sport has rare and timely opportunities to grow in the United States. The challenge now is whether cycling can present a compelling enough vision to convince a major media company to tell that story.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Last week, I announced that I would be consolidating my reporting on youth development in the United States into a new series called Foundations. This week, I continue that work by examining the fragmented landscape of junior racing, with a focus on the structural flaws, missed opportunities, and the constraints that shape our next generation of domestic talent.

Much of my reporting has centered on current professional athletes and the systemic weaknesses within American development pipelines. This time, I wanted to hear directly from an athlete who has only recently exited the U23 ranks and is actively navigating the transition into the professional level. I spoke with Hayden Christian, a gravel and mountain bike specialist who took a non-traditional development path while still offering a clear view into what the modern U23 experience actually looks like.

With the majority of media attention focused on established professionals with results and sponsorships, up-and-coming athletes often face challenges that go largely unnoticed by media outlets, sponsors, and governing bodies alike. As athletes like Sarah Sturm and Alexey Vermeulen have emphasized, meaningful development starts from the ground up. If the sport wants to progress in the coming years, sustained attention on junior athletes should be prioritized.

In this article, I will frequently reference junior and U23 racing. “Junior” refers to athletes aged 17 to 18, while “U23” refers to athletes aged 19 to 22.

Hayden’s experience

After a recent conversation with friend of the newsletter, Holy Spirit of Gravel, I was introduced to Hayden as an ideal athlete to explore the realities of junior and U23 racing in the United States. She recommended Hayden not only because he is a friend, but because his development path highlights many of the structural challenges facing young riders today.

Hayden began racing as a mountain biker but competed in only one national-level junior race before aging into the U23 category. As we will explore, this transition offered limited opportunities for development and quickly became more about survival than progression.

With U23 mountain biking failing to provide the amount of opportunities he was seeking, Hayden shifted his focus toward gravel racing. This year, he competed in the inaugural Life Time Grand Prix U23 series, one of the few structured development opportunities currently available to off-road juniors in the U.S.

After this season, Hayden aged out of the U23 category and is now racing professionally in top off-road events. This transition has introduced a new set of challenges that are common for young athletes navigating the jump to the professional ranks.

Taken together, Hayden represents a valuable case study. His path is unique, yet highly representative of the trade-offs young athletes are forced to make when choosing between limited development options.

Developing in the U.S. is hard

The dream for any young athlete is to race against the best professionals in the world. For mountain biking that means racing in UCI World Cup races. For Hayden, and for many other young racers, that opportunity can often come too soon. As mentioned earlier, Hayden competed in only one national-level junior race before aging into the U23 category.

The window for elite junior racing is extremely narrow. As a result, athletes are often forced to race older, more experienced U23 competitors without having first developed race craft against peers of similar age and ability.

Racing in the U23 category does not guarantee stable or developmentally appropriate competition for more experienced riders either. While USA Cycling sanctions U23 mountain bike races, meaningful exposure to World Cup teams largely comes through UCI events, which are limited in number across the United States. Limited opportunities become more limited because USA Cycling points do not transfer to UCI points. This creates a steep and often unforgiving learning curve, as Hayden explained:

“I had to race men’s elite class in the UCI, and it was brutal. It was basically not even racing. It was more along the lines of trying not to get lapped by Christopher Blevins on the second lap of the race.

That’s just how the system worked. If you don’t have [UCI] points, you line up in the back. There’s no U23 classification or scoring, it’s pretty crazy.”

Without a dedicated U23 classification at these races, young athletes are grouped directly with older elite professionals. As Hayden described, this environment does little to foster development or race craft. Instead, it forces young riders to compete for survival rather than growth.

The United States is unquestionably producing exceptional mountain bikers like Christopher Blevins, Riley Amos, and Haley Batten. Still, stories like Hayden’s suggest that the current system leaves meaningful development opportunities on the table and limits how many U23 athletes successfully transition to the professional ranks.

Overall, talent is not the issue. Categorization is. Hayden emphasized that sentiment.

“There are some incredible athletes racing U.S. Cups, but you have no idea who they are because there’s no media coverage. No sponsors are really diving into the mountain bike scene here in the U.S.”

In most disciplines, if the goal is to race professionally at UCI events, the lack of domestic UCI races and the absence of clear U23 classifications create an environment of scarcity and unequal competition. This structure consistently hinders rider development and limits how many young athletes are able to progress through the system successfully. These were some of the issues that led Hayden to pursue gravel.

Gravel as a development pathway

After hearing about Hayden’s background in mountain biking, one of my first questions was simple: why gravel? For Hayden, and for many other young athletes, gravel presents opportunities that simply do not exist in mountain biking or on the road

“I saw that there was way more opportunity within the gravel scene than there was trying to go the World Cup route. I think the World Cup, right now, is just a super hard path. Not that gravel isn’t hard, but I don’t think there are as many opportunities on that side [World Cup] as there are in gravel.”

In gravel, opportunity is being created through more level age-based competition and far greater media coverage. This shift has been led by one series in particular: the Life Time Grand Prix.

The 2025 season marked the first year the off-road series included a U23 field, creating one of the only prominent U23 circuits in the country that attracts both sponsors and top talent. As Hayden said:

“The U23 series is definitely giving people like myself and other young kids the opportunity to showcase their talents and not be subjected to racing elite pros like Keegan Swenson, where you’re constantly overshadowed.”

Gravel clearly provides a viable path to professional racing in the U.S., and it does so without the involvement of a formal sanctioning body. That open culture is exactly the type of environment other disciplines desperately need. Still, gravel is not without its own flaws, many of which stem from the financial realities of the sport.

Financial barriers affect junior and U23 athletes across every discipline, but despite significant outside investment flowing into gravel racing, very little of that money reaches the developmental level. For U23 athletes competing in the Life Time Grand Prix, it was surprising that basic costs such as race entry fees were not waived for the group that arguably needed the support most.

The issue came into sharper focus at the end of the season when current professional Alexey Vermeulen raised funds and covered entry fees for the top five U23 men and women. That gesture had a tangible impact on the athletes, including Hayden, and underscored both the generosity within the gravel community and the structural gaps that still exist.

“Just having our entry fees paid was massive. But I thought it was a little weird that a privateer who has bills to pay himself was raising money for U23s. I was a little confused as to why Life Time maybe wasn’t helping foot the bill on that.”

It is another example of how, at the youth level, small actions can have an outsized impact, and how inaction can quietly exclude talented athletes. Gravel and Life Time are proving that better development pathways are viable, but when progress depends on individual goodwill rather than clear, actionable policy, those pathways remain fragile.

Finances remain the biggest biggest barrier to development

I have spent a lot of time arguing that stronger collegiate cycling infrastructure and meaningful scholarships could ease the financial burden associated with high level racing. To show just how difficult a self supported development path can be, I wanted to listen closely to Hayden’s experience navigating mountain biking and gravel.

Equipment, race entry fees, and travel are the biggest expenses, and without sponsors, it is unlikely that most juniors can support their ambitions on their own. In reality, many young athletes rely heavily on family support to stay in the sport. In Hayden’s experience, that reality was clear:

“It’s a financial burden for sure if you do not have sponsors. Traveling all over the country, entry fees, logistics, it adds up really fast. Most U23s, their biggest sponsors are their parents. That’s just the reality. Most U23s are not getting help from bike companies because those companies are helping the very top of the top of the sport.”

Geography only compounds the issue. Whether it is mountain biking, gravel, or road, American athletes often have to travel long distances just to access competitive racing. For many, that means sacrificing the ability to live and train at home in order to reduce costs. Hayden explained how this has shaped his own choices:

“I’ve kind of subjected myself to living in places where it’s easier to travel to races. I’ll be in Arizona, then I move up to the Midwest partway through the year so the traveling isn’t as bad. I’m closer to the races.”

Most athletes and families accept that cycling is, to some extent, a pay to play sport. That is true for many sports in the United States, but cycling is unique in how little structural support exists to offset those costs. Outside of a handful of private teams and rare varsity programs, there is minimal contribution from USAC, club teams, or collegiate programs toward equipment, race entry fees, or travel.

Without meaningful structural change and increased athlete support from organizations like Life Time, USAC, and colleges, the sport will remain inaccessible for many. Until then, youth development in American cycling will continue to be filtered by socioeconomic status rather than talent alone.

The choice not to pursue collegiate cycling

We all know this is my favorite topic, but my perspective has always been shaped by conversations with current and former American pros who have been removed from collegiate cycling for several years. That raises an important question. Since their time in the system, has collegiate cycling actually strengthened, or does it still offer limited opportunity?

After speaking with Hayden, it seems that little has changed on the opportunity front for talented riders. The lack of cycling scholarships and meaningful program funding remains the biggest drawback of the collegiate circuit. As Hayden explained:

“Originally, I wanted to go to Fort Lewis. That was my goal. But once I realized there’s just no money in collegiate cycling, I started questioning it. When I went to sign up, you had to make donations in order to be on the team. I’m from Texas, so I’d already be paying out of state tuition, plus paying to ride my bike.”

As a development pathway, collegiate cycling still does not carry the same legitimacy as other collegiate sports or as elite level individual racing.

“It’s not looked at as a development program like football or basketball. If you’re playing college basketball, you’re being developed to go to the NBA. If you’re playing college football, you’re being developed to go to the NFL. In cycling, most of the good people don’t race collegiately. They might go to school on the side, but they’re not racing collegiate bike races. They’re just going straight to World Cups or Life Time races.”

Hayden was quick to note that there are talented athletes racing within collegiate programs. However, those riders are unlikely to receive the same level of competition or development available through other pathways. Until collegiate cycling can offer deeper fields, establish legitimacy as a true development pipeline, and make financial sense for young riders, it will continue to be one of the weakest links in American cycling development.

Progress requires infrastructure

My conversation with Hayden affirmed many of my previous assumptions while also highlighting both emerging opportunities and the steep challenges facing athlete development in the United States. Hayden has been able to take advantage of new opportunities in gravel racing, including more level competition, increased sponsor visibility, and a clearer pipeline into professional racing.

Even with this pathway opening up, it remains narrow compared to the sheer number of young athletes competing across all cycling disciplines nationwide. A few realities still apply to nearly every aspiring rider:

• Every pathway requires a significant financial commitment from the athlete and their family. Reliable financial assistance remains largely absent for collegiate riders and privateer athletes like Hayden.

• Collegiate cycling remains an option, but it continues to lack depth of field, meaningful financial opportunity, and the legitimacy associated with other development pathways.

• No pathway is straightforward. The current structure of junior and U23 racing in the U.S. is fragmented, with inconsistent categorization and limited clarity for athletes trying to progress.

Addressing these issues will require real investment and a willingness to rethink long standing development structures. Governing bodies, event organizers, and private stakeholders, including USAC and Life Time, all have a role to play. Until there is a coordinated effort to better support emerging athletes, the United States will continue to fall short of producing the volume of talent needed to remain relevant on the world stage.

What’s next for Hayden?

Hayden had a standout 2025 season, finishing third overall in the Life Time Grand Prix U23 series and winning the UNBOUND 100. In 2026, he plans to be more selective with his race calendar, focusing on the early part of the season and the back half of the year. These strategic decisions are closely aligned with his goal of delivering immediate and meaningful visibility for his sponsors.

While Hayden will continue racing select Life Time events, chasing a wildcard spot into the Grand Prix is not his top priority. Instead, he plans to use the added flexibility to pursue a broader range of opportunities across gravel and mountain biking.

I am excited to see how Hayden’s season unfolds and to hear the experiences that come with it, as they will continue to shed light on the realities of pursuing a professional career in cycling. I plan to reconnect with Hayden midway through the season and again toward the end to share those insights, so stay tuned.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Diving back in

A few weeks ago, I interviewed Sarah Sturm about collegiate cycling. If you missed it, the key takeaway from our conversation was clear: collegiate cycling plays a critical role in developing the next generation of American cyclists. Ultimately, the current USA Cycling (USAC) sanctioned club structure has not created enough growth for the sport.

To be clear, I don’t place blame or harsh criticism on USAC, they are making the most of the resources available to them. That said, I came to the conclusion that an alternative path should be explored. Specifically, collegiate cycling could benefit by moving away from an exclusively club sport and making a concerted effort to become an NCAA sport. The potential benefits include increased funding, more programs, improved development resources, and greater exposure and legitimacy.

In that article, I explored the benefits and opportunities the NCAA could offer collegiate cycling compared to the current system. One of the most important advantages is funding, which is where we’ll pick up the discussion in this piece.

What are we looking at?

We already know the NCAA is a massive organization that dwarfs USAC, but what level of financial commitment does USAC realistically contribute to collegiate cycling, and how would NCAA classification provide a clearer growth pathway?

To evaluate USAC’s current investment, I reviewed its 2024 Form 990, a tax document which nonprofit organizations are required to file to provide transparency into revenue, expenses, and external commitments.

It’s worth remembering that USAC serves as the governing body for all national-level and categorized cycling in the United States, they do much more than sanction collegiate cycling. These responsibilities include Olympic team selection, organizing national championships, registering riders so they can earn USAC points, and supporting athletes at world championships and other international events. With an annual revenue of roughly $14 million, the key question becomes, how much of that money is actually directed back toward development programs and scholarships each year?

USAC’s current commitment

*All financial information comes from USAC’s 2024 from 990, which covers the period between Jan 1 to Jun 30, 2024.

USAC’s 2024 Form 990 was fairly clear when it came to funding directed toward collegiate cycling and broader domestic development. During the six month period, the total amount in grants awarded to domestic organizations amounted to $22,338, with an additional $27,100 distributed through individual athlete grants. The allocations broke down as follows:

• Navajo Technical University: $5,358 (scholarship support)

• CT Cycling Advancement Program: $16,980 (youth cycling, not necessarily collegiate)

• Individual athlete grants to 15 recipients: approximately $1,800 per athlete

In total, roughly $49,000 was allocated to non-national team development.

For additional context, USA Cycling reported several other major spending categories that do not directly support collegiate programs:

• $1,920,481 on international operations (40x the amount of the previously listed grants)

• $3,442,864 on athlete development, serving 4,500 athlete days

At first glance, the athlete development figure appears substantial, but it can be misleading without context. “Athlete days” is largely an administrative metric that reflects costs such as coach and staff salaries, training center operations, and national events. In practice, this funding supports services and programs that athletes can access only if they are already able to participate, rather than providing direct financial support to collegiate programs or junior athletes.

In total, even if we extrapolate funding across the rest of 2024, USAC would likely contribute around $100,000 towards junior development grants. This is not a criticism of USAC, but rather a reflection of the financial reality that limits its ability to rapidly scale collegiate cycling programs and broader development pipelines.

Why it matters

There are no illusions about cycling being an expensive sport, given the costs of equipment, travel, and entry fees. There is a significant difference between club teams that receive minimal institutional support and varsity teams that benefit from dedicated staff, funding, and resources.

Those additional resources are often a determining factor in whether a sport can transition into the NCAA. In theory, if USAC were able to provide greater funding to non-varsity club teams, institutions might be more willing to invest in a varsity program, causing the gap could narrow. In reality, that level of support does not exist.

Most collegiate club teams receive little to no funding or infrastructure from their schools, which directly limits athlete development. However, there are currently twenty universities that provide funding, coaching, and resources to cycling teams, and these are classified by USAC as varsity programs. This distinction becomes a key factor in evaluating the feasibility of collegiate cycling meeting the criteria required to become an NCAA-eligible sport.

NCAA eligibility

The eligibility requirements for becoming an NCAA sport are actually relatively straightforward. A sport must meet the requirements of an “emerging sport,” which means at least twenty varsity/club programs with 10 being sponsored by schools.

While I don’t have the exact number of varsity cycling teams that are officially sponsored by their university, the number seems to be close, if not already past, ten. If the number of sponsored teams already meet the required threshold, cycling could already be eligible to become an NCAA sport.

Additionally, to become an NCAA championship sport, at least 40 NCAA institutions must sponsor the sport. Collegiate cycling still has room to grow to reach this milestone.

As much as I want to scream, send it, become an NCAA sport! I realize there are levels to this proposition. In my Sarah Sturm story, I detailed some of the challenges facing “olympic” NCAA sports, and some of the old fears that new NIL rules alleviate, but what other reasons might a sport want to remain at the club level?

Why remain a club sport?

Until I have more conversations with USAC staff, I won’t fully understand why collegiate cycling hasn’t pursued NCAA status. There are several reasons a sport might choose to remain at the club level though, including:

• Niche appeal

• Lack of traditional childhood development pipelines

• Desire to maintain skill inclusivity

• Retaining student control

• Universities refusing to sponsor a sport

• Disproportionate time commitments compared to other sports

• Decentralized competition structures

Most, if not all, of these factors apply to cycling, making it understandable why remaining a club sport has long been seen as the best route. And who knows? Maybe I’m wrong and the club structure is the right path.

However, it’s hard to ignore stagnation in the sport, particularly in the number of professionals and the quality of results we produce as a nation at the pro level. Being the risk-accepting entrepreneur I am, my instinct is to take the leap and say, let’s at least try something drastically different. It might not be all or nothing though, maybe there could be a compromise.

Is gymnastics our guiding beacon?

While considering sports with a similar structure to cycling gymnastics came to mind. Gymnastics has a national governing body and is also a NCAA sport. As I looked into how USA Gymnastics (USAG) works with the NCAA, the learning opportunities for cycling became clear.

Here’s a basic rundown of how USAG and the NCAA collaborate:

• The NCAA generally follows USAG’s sanctioning rules for collegiate events, though rules can vary by discipline.

• NCAA schools can register as USAG members, allowing their athletes to remain eligible for USAG events and international team selection.

• Both USAG and the NCAA host separate championships, which spreads the reach of the sport.

• The organizations partner to promote NCAA collegiate gymnastics as a professional pathway.

I could—and likely will in a later release—dig deeper into the similarities and differences between USAG and USAC’s approach to collegiate athletics. In short, USAG managed to relinquish complete sanctioning control and compromise with the NCAA to create a system that:

• Better supports growth from youth development through professional competition year after year

• Provides more financial and training resources to more athletes

• Allows USAG to focus on optimizing international/Olympic teams and youth programs

• Leverages the NCAA’s influence to bring greater legitimacy to the sport domestically

It’s important to note that gymnastics has far higher participation numbers than cycling, and USAG is a significantly larger organization with more financial resources compared to USAC. If such a major organization sees the need and benefit of delegating responsibilities to outside partners, it raises the question of why a much smaller entity like USAC hasn’t explored a similar approach.

I will hopefully have answers for you soon ;)

Using what we have

If a partnership between USA Cycling and the NCAA is the solution, what steps could be taken now to get the process started? Much of it comes down to simplification and prioritization to ensure a smooth and effective transition.

What disciplines should be included in the NCAA?

USAC needs to identify which cycling disciplines should be part of NCAA competition. Road racing and mountain biking are obvious starting points given their popularity, spectator appeal, and cross-discipline viability. While it would be ideal to include every discipline, universities need a clear, achievable focus to meet NCAA requirements.

Coordination

If this idea has even partial support within USAC, conversations with the NCAA need to start immediately. Coordination with the NCAA and even USAG will be crucial to share insights and develop competition structures.

Incentivizing adoption

USAC needs to find ways to convince major universities to sponsor varsity cycling programs. For instance, USAC could reallocate funding to provide grants or other support to Division I universities that choose to sponsor NCAA cycling programs.

Cut the fat

USAC should review its budget to determine where funds are currently going, assess which activities most directly benefit collegiate cycling, and identify areas that could be delegated to the NCAA.

These are broad strokes for a monumental task, but they provide a starting point for ideas and action. Either way, this is a topic that will continue to be explored in this newsletter.

A note and some exciting news

This article probably raised more questions than answers, and that’s a good thing. It means we have so much more to explore, unpack, and ideate on.

So, after writing two pieces on collegiate development, it’s become something I think about almost every day. It’s a topic I’ve grown deeply interested in and one where I believe I can have a real impact. Going forward, I plan to dedicate more time to it in future editions and ultimately develop it into a recurring series called Foundations.

The exciting news

As of writing this piece, two major announcements have emerged around collegiate cycling in the United States. First, high school racing will be added to three collegiate national championships, creating more scouting opportunities for rising junior athletes. Second, the first-ever collegiate gravel national championship will be held at Valley of Tears Gravel, further legitimizing the discipline.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Today, I’m adapting that idea to the world of gravel bike sponsors. As you can probably guess, this wasn’t an original concept, so full credit goes to Seth Lareau and Trail Waves. Go check out his article, and the Substack as a whole, to see what inspired this format. I’ll break down my scoring criteria below, but Trail Waves is where the structure came from.

My power rankings

If you’re unfamiliar with power rankings, they’re a subjective way of ranking teams or athletes based on strengths, recent performance, and future potential. When it comes to gravel bike brands, the rankings lean heavily on performance, since wins put a single bike in the spotlight. That said, I also wanted to leave room for x-factors like the social impact of sponsored athletes and whether a brand’s bike specs align with current trends.

My power rankings will be split into two sections:

Pure Performance

Based on cumulative results from each brand at the year’s biggest races.

X-factors

Based on intangible elements that can make a brand more relevant, even if it is underperforming in raw results.

I’ll start with a detailed ranking of the top ten brands based strictly on performance. From there, I’ll highlight three brands that I see as either dark horses or outperforming their results and overall brand footprint. This second section is intentionally subjective, with the goal of highlighting how important brand strategy can be when it comes to athlete sponsorships.

Scoring criteria

For the performance section of the rankings I am taking a similar approach to Seth’s shoe sponsor power rankings by selecting the largest gravel races of the year (determined by public sentiment, series association, and overall payout for top finishers) and assigning points to the top ten finishers in both the men’s and women’s events..

Not all races are created equal. Some carry far more weight than others due to media coverage, depth of field, race demands, and race structure. For these rankings, I’ve grouped races into three tiers based on their significance and applied different scoring criteria to better capture the true impact of a strong result at each event.

Tier 1

Tier 1 includes Unbound 200 and Traka 360. Unbound has earned a reputation as the unofficial gravel world championship, while Traka 360 is Europe’s most demanding event in terms of terrain and distance. Both are considered the crown jewels of gravel racing.

Results from these races will receive double points, with first place earning 20 points, second earning 18, and so on.

Tier 2

Tier 2 consists of two gravel stage races: Gravel Burn and the Oregon Trail Gravel Grinder. Gravel Burn is a seven-day stage race, while Oregon Trail spans five days. Both attracted deep fields with top riders in both the men’s and women’s races.

These events will be scored based on general classification standings, meaning cumulative time across all stages. Results will receive 1.5x points, with first place earning 15 points, second earning 13.5, and so on.

Tier 3

Tier 3 includes marquee one-day events such as Sea Otter Classic Gravel, Gravel Worlds (Nebraska), Belgian Waffle Ride California, Ranxo Gravel, and the Big Sugar Classic.

These races will use standard scoring, with first place earning 10 points, second earning 9 points, and so on.

The performance rankings

10. Trek (73 points)

Notable results: 3rd Unbound (men), 3rd Big Sugar (men)

While Trek did not appear on the podium frequently in 2025, the brand consistently placed riders inside the top ten across both men’s and women’s fields. A major contributor to this performance was Trek’s dedicated off-road team, Driftless. Big budgets tend to attract strong riders, and the factory-style setup delivered solid results throughout the season, highlighted by Torbjørn Andre Røed’s 3rd place overall finish in the Life Time Grand Prix.

9. Orbea (74.5 points)

Notable results: 2nd Big Sugar (men), 5th Gravel Burn and Oregon Trail (men), 4th Oregon Trail (women), 2nd Ranxo (women)

The Spanish manufacturer took a meaningful step forward in 2025, driven by results from athletes like Morgan Aguirre (PAS Racing) and Laurence Naesen (Rapha). With race-oriented geometry and frequent prototype models appearing on course, Orbea clearly played an active role in supporting athlete performance and development throughout the season.

8. Ventum (75.5 points)

Notable results: 2nd Unbound (women), 2nd Big Sugar (women), 3rd Sea Otter Classic (women), 4th Gravel Burn (women)

Ventum likely had its most successful season to date, with one athlete in particular leading the charge: Cecily Decker (PAS Racing). Decker finished 2nd overall in the Life Time Grand Prix and collected multiple podiums across the series. Lauren Stephens also continued her dominance, securing her second consecutive U.S. Gravel National Championship win and adding to the brand’s strong 2025 resume.

7. BMC (77 points)

Notable results: 2nd Traka 360 (men), 2nd Unbound (men), 2nd Gravel Burn (men)

Known for carrying aero road bike design principles into their gravel offerings, BMC’s Kaius may not be ideal for the most technical courses. That said, 2025 marked a clear step forward for the brand in gravel racing, particularly at events that reward sustained speed and tactical racing. Simon Pellaud (Tudor Pro Cycling) successfully translated his road pedigree to gravel, finishing 2nd overall in the Life Time Grand Prix and earning strong results at several international races. For riders prioritizing speed, BMC made a compelling case this season.

6. Santa Cruz (84 points)

Notable results: 1st Sea Otter Classic (men), 2nd Gravel Worlds (men), 4th and 5th Big Sugar (women)

This season appeared to be a step back for Santa Cruz. In any of the past three years, the combined performances of Keegan Swenson and Alexis Skarda would have comfortably placed the brand inside the top three. While 2025 was still a strong showing, increased competition across the gravel circuit meant fewer wins for Swenson.

With little evolution to their gravel bike, the Stigmata, and rumors circulating that Swenson may move to Specialized in 2026, Santa Cruz will need to manage a transitional period carefully if they want to maintain a top ten position.

The women’s field may offer the clearest path forward. If Santa Cruz can retain and place additional top riders alongside Alexis Skarda and Ruth Holcomb, the brand has the potential to continue producing podium level results. Santa Cruz is dissolving their gravel team htSQD, so who knows what’s next for the brand.

5. Factor (87 points)

Notable results: 2nd Ranxo (men), 3rd Oregon Trail (men), 3rd Gravel Burn (women), 4th Sea Otter Classic (women)

Factor’s presence in the top ten initially surprised me, but the results tell a clear story. The brand followed a similar approach to BMC, prioritizing consistency and backing multiple high performing athletes such as Lauren De Crescenzo and Rob Britton.

While the Ostro Gravel lags behind competitors in tire clearance, its aerodynamic design proved effective on less technical courses. That focus allowed Factor riders to repeatedly place near the front and quietly build one of the more consistent seasons of any brand on this list.

4. Rose (89 points)

Notable results: 1st Unbound (women), 1st Traka 360 (women), 4th Ranxo (women), 3rd Ranxo (men)

Rose delivered a standout season in 2025, with consistent top-level results at the biggest gravel races on the calendar. Karo Migon (PAS Racing) won both Unbound and Traka 360 aboard the Backroad FF, cementing the brand’s place among the sport’s elite.

For a smaller and more affordable manufacturer, Rose has outperformed many larger competitors by investing directly in athletes and letting race results do the marketing. This season showed just how far that approach can go.

3. Scott (100 points)

Notable results: 1st Unbound (men), 1st Oregon Trail (men), 3rd Gravel Worlds (men)

A New Zealander who entered the 2025 season as a wildcard in the Life Time Grand Prix turned out to be the wildcard that paid off for Scott. Cam Jones captured the attention of the gravel world with his laid-back personality, cross-country travel in a rented U-Haul, and parents serving as his support crew at the sport’s biggest races.

The attention only grew after his dominant solo victory at Unbound. From there, Jones went on to win the Life Time Grand Prix and establish himself as the first rider to truly dethrone Keegan Swenson. Scott capitalized on the momentum by releasing a YouTube series documenting his rise, and the brand appears well positioned to continue supporting compelling athlete stories in 2026.

2. Canyon (134 points)

Notable results: 4th Sea Otter Classic (men), 2nd BWR California (men), 4th Ranxo (men), 4th Traka 360 (women), 4th Unbound (women), 1st Gravel Worlds (women), 1st Ranxo (women)

Canyon was an early adopter of gravel racing, sponsoring athletes like Isabel King, Peter Stetina, and Heather Jackson right when the discipline exploded. While Stetina and Jackson continue to deliver strong results, the brand’s future at the elite level looks even brighter.

Once again, the women’s field drove the bulk of Canyon’s success. After winning Unbound in 2024, Rosa Klöser left Rose to join Canyon as a hybrid road and gravel racer. In 2025, she fully established herself on gravel, consistently winning and placing herself among the discipline’s top athletes.

1. Specialized (449.5 points)

Notable results: 1st Traka 360 (men), 1st Big Sugar (men), 1st Gravel Worlds (men), 1st BWR California (men), 1st Gravel Burn (men), 1st and 2nd Sea Otter Classic (women), 2nd Gravel Worlds (women), 1st–3rd BWR California (women), 1st–3rd Oregon Trail (women)

Complete dominance is the only way to describe Specialized’s season. Athletes like Matt Beers, Sofia Gomez Villafane, Sarah Sturm, and Tobias Kongstad stacked wins and podiums at nearly every major gravel event on the calendar. Specialized does not just sponsor top athletes, they sponsor a deep roster of them. With massive budgets comes the ability to control both results and narrative.

With Keegan Swenson rumored to be joining Specialized in 2026, the brand appears positioned to extend its dominance even further.

Interestingly, Specialized’s gravel lineup has remained largely unchanged. The Crux and Diverge continue to offer roughly 50mm of tire clearance and exposed cable routing. Despite relatively stagnant product innovation, results have made it clear that athlete depth and execution have mattered far more than cutting-edge equipment in 2025.

Specialized has remained dominant and with an even stronger roster and rumored upgrades to the Crux, I don’t see anything stopping them from dominating the 2026 season.

Insights from power rankings

Sponsoring the right athlete can change everything

As we’ve seen with brands like Ventum, Rose, Canyon, and Scott, a single rider can be the difference between getting lost in a crowded field and becoming a brand that wins the sport’s most competitive gravel races.

Money can buy success and visibility

As much as we may not want to admit it, Specialized has the resources to sponsor the very best athletes and ensure their bikes dominate podiums and overall standings. By earning more than three times the points of the next closest brand, Specialized proved that they can, and will, back whichever athletes they believe will deliver results. With Keegan Swenson likely joining the team, the new Crux could quickly become known as the benchmark gravel race bike.

Look good, race fast

I’m not suggesting that apparel alone determines race results, but it’s hard to ignore the success of riders competing for teams sponsored by Pas Normal Studios and MAAP. Torbjørn Andre Røed and Rosa Klöser stood out in their bright, custom MAAP kits while delivering dominant performances, and athletes like Cecily Decker, Morgan Aguirre, Tobias Kongstad, and Karo Migon secured top results at the sport’s most prestigious races for PAS Racing.

The power of female athletes

Ventum, Rose, and Canyon earned the majority of their points from top finishes by women. As talent in the women’s field continues to emerge, brands should recognize just how valuable the right athlete can be. Women’s sponsorship is likely to become increasingly competitive as brands search for the next breakout gravel star.

With female athletes typically enjoying a longer performance window than their male counterparts, brands are well positioned to invest earlier and more intentionally in youth development programs to identify and support emerging talent.

The Dark Horses

As I said earlier, good results aren’t the only thing that determine success. Here are brands that I think are making moves that will continue to drive business growth.

Ventum

Earlier this year, I interviewed Travis McCabe, athlete manager for Ventum, about his philosophy on athlete sponsorship. Travis strongly believes in prioritizing unquantifiable traits when selecting riders for the team. At the top of that list is character. Athletes also need to fully embrace and maximize the additional support that comes with being a Ventum rider. For him, it is not only about results or social media reach.

It is hard to argue with the outcome of that approach. Ventum signed Cecily Decker last year, and the brand now sits high in these power rankings largely because of her performances. Cecily has become a fixture in the Life Time Grand Prix, and her Ventum GS1 has become just as recognizable.

Branding and product focus have also played a role in Ventum’s success. As a direct-to-consumer company, Ventum exclusively sells race-oriented bikes. Being a U.S.-based brand, the narrative writes itself when sponsoring an American athlete dominating the country’s fastest-growing cycling discipline. Watch closely to see who joins Ventum in 2026 as the brand continues to expand.

Rose

Remember how I mentioned the power of female athletes? Rose seems to have perfected it. Their bike has won Unbound two years in a row with two different standout riders. In 2024, Rosa Klöser (now on Canyon) took the win, and in 2025, Karo Migon claimed victory. Both riders have gone on to win some of gravel’s most prestigious events. The back-to-back wins also highlighted the versatility of both the athletes and the bike: 2024 ended in a bunch sprint, while 2025 saw Migon ride solo to victory after dropping her PAS teammate Cecily Decker.

Consistency has put the German brand on the radar of many international gravel buyers, but Rose continues to expand its overall footprint with their recent sponsorship of the UCI Pro team, Unibet Rose Rockets. While the team is fully focused on the road, they have become the sport’s most viral squad and are likely to compete in the Tour de France this year. Rose is getting exposure for their bikes from every angle, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they grow to become the next Factor or BMC.

Allied

While their athletes didn’t score consistently to place in the top ten, I think Allied Cycle Works has done an excellent job at leading the industry in innovation and athlete sponsorship. Their flagship gravel bike, the Able, features an aero, fully integrated design that can accommodate large mountain bike tires. With some of the biggest tire clearance in the gravel world, Allied has become a premium performance bike that any pro would be happy to race.

Allied also reinforces their premium, American identity with their two marque athletes, Payson McElveen and Kate Courtney. Both are Red Bull athletes with wide social reach. And, this year Allied built a World Champion bike. Kate Courtney took home the Marathon Mountain Bike World championship this year on her BC40.

Kate doesn’t race gravel and Payson missed a chunk of the season with a broken hip, so my take is that their lack of points doesn’t represent their overall performance. Look out for Kate Courtney ripping fields apart on her Allied BC40 next year!

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Subscribe now

What did I miss? Is there a brand breaking the mold and outperforming from a brand or product standpoint? Will Specialized buy gravel dominance outright? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Disclaimer: This piece is different and shorter than my usual content, so just know this is a one-off personal topic I felt like sharing.

With that said, I’ll be posting a new full-length article in a few days to balance things out. That means two new releases for you all next week!

Choosing Discomfort

Beyond covering strategic topics like youth development in the United States, this SubStack brings me a sense of purpose and community. That’s a good thing because it means this isn’t something I plan to push aside anytime soon.

The decision to start this project wasn’t easy. I knew I was taking on something that would need to be balanced with a full-time job in tech, over ten hours of weekly training on the bike, and the usual social commitments that come with being twenty-seven. In many ways, it felt similar to the choice I made two years ago when I decided to start racing gravel events, which required those long training weeks I just mentioned.

Both decisions ultimately came down to choosing discomfort and, for me, choosing a path toward healing. I think this personal journey ties into cycling on a broader level, but to get that point, we need to go back about three weeks.

Enter, Andrew Vontz

A few days before what would become a very difficult period in my life, I was in an Uber when I received a text from someone I had only connected with briefly online. That person was Andrew Vontz, host of the Choose The Hard Way podcast. He invited me to a networking event the following week, which was an opportunity I pounced on.

Some background on Andrew will help provide context. The guiding philosophy behind his podcast, of which I’m an avid listener, is what makes it stand out. Andrew regularly interviews athletes and high-profile public figures about why they choose to do hard things. The ethos of Choose The Hard Way is “the podcast about how hard things build stronger people who have more fun.”

Andrew’s networking walk came at perfect timing, occurring the day after I had faced an incredibly difficult situation. The walk was incredible. I loved connecting with Andrew, and more than anything, the experience cemented the Choose The Hard Way mantra in my mind at exactly the moment I needed it most.

It helped me step back and realize that choosing the hard way through cycling has become a core part of my identity. It’s something I’m proud of and something I believe reflects how many avid cyclists see the sport as more than just a fitness hobby, but as a way of life.

It’s a perspective the cycling industry could highlight more: cycling as a tool to seek discomfort that combats the discomfort you can’t choose, and ultimately makes life more fun.

Sometimes you don’t get to choose the hard way

Hard challenges, whether chosen or forced, shape us – but some face uncontrollable hardships more often. Mental illness can mean that no matter how hard someone tries, taming the mind can become the biggest challenge imaginable.

I’m one of those people whose brain sometimes convinces them that life is terrible and challenges are insurmountable. I’ve lived with a mental health diagnosis since 2019, and it’s something I’m open about. Don’t worry, this isn’t a cry for help, nor the start of a deep philosophical discussion. Why? Because this Substack is meant to be fun, damn it!

Making it fun

As Andrew says, “hard things build stronger people who have more fun.” Depression and anxiety do not make life more fun, trust me, but they can make seeking hard challenges feel like the only thing worth enjoying. That has certainly been my experience with cycling.

It’s proven that exercise benefits mood and mental health, but endurance sports can become a way to regain purpose. I long struggled to understand whether my obsession with cycling was a form of evasion, a way to bottle up emotions. I still have my doubts, but this newsletter usually affirms the opposite. Cycling has become a source of purpose and healing, helping me set goals, stay motivated, and build community so I can truly have fun.

It all comes down to balancing the discomfort we choose, like hard races, ambitious articles, or demanding training plans, with the hardships that find us. Both types of discomfort serve a purpose. For me, chosen discomfort provides goals, socialization, and purpose, while unexpected hardships give me motivation during the toughest moments of that chosen discomfort because I am actively overcoming something.

I have to note that I would not be where I am today without the support of incredible friends, family, and medical professionals, but cycling has played an equally important role. From listening to guests on Andrew’s podcast and my own interactions with athletes, I know I am not the only person for whom cycling has become a source of stability and growth.

Another growth opportunity

I wanted to tie this back to my newsletter and plant a seed for some of the people of influence who might read it. It may feel uncomfortable to touch on a topic like mental health for the sake of advertising, but sharing the stories of people like me and the pro-athletes who have found healing through cycling can be a powerful tool.

Cycling is not a cure, and it is only one piece of the puzzle (especially if seeking professional help is needed). But cycling can provide an opportunity to transform someone’s life when they need it most. By telling these stories, we can not only get more people on bikes but also grow the culture, strengthen the cycling community, and, most importantly, positively impact lives.

Advertise the discomfort, emphasize the challenge, and show how hard things build stronger people who have more fun. This is how we can make cycling real and relatable. Let’s grow the sport and industry with purpose.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes

Check out Andrew’s content

• Podcast

• SubStack

• One Real Voice

If you haven’t noticed already, I write a lot about the Life Time Grand Prix. I’m far from the only one since the series has become the center of domestic off-road racing. The storylines, the competition, and the sheer volume of media around it make it impossible to ignore.

But while most coverage focuses on race results and personalities, I try to dig one layer deeper and examine the business and developmental forces shaping the series. This week is no different. I’m taking a closer look at the motivations behind some of Life Time’s more debated policies and whether they are the correct path forward.

The old “drama”

I mentioned that I like to dig a layer deeper, but the idea for this piece actually came from the recent discourse surrounding the rider selection process for the 2026 edition of the series. It’s a conversation that has followed the Grand Prix since its inception, and this year the discussion evolved in some meaningful ways.

The Grand Prix is a six-race off-road series with men’s and women’s fields capped at twenty-five riders each. Since day one, people have questioned how Life Time chooses the athletes who get to compete. For the first four seasons, the process felt murky and offered little explanation for why certain riders made the roster while others were left out.

A common narrative took hold: popularity seemed to matter more than talent. The idea was that a big Instagram following translated into being a better marketing vehicle for the series. No one doubted the selected athletes were world-class, but the omission of other strong riders fueled these theories.

The new “drama”

This year brought a major shift. Life Time introduced automatic entries for top finishers, along with two wildcard slots that riders could earn through the first two events. And as fate would have it, one of those wildcards, Cam Jones, went on to win the overall. His performance reshaped the standings and surprised many of the long-established stars of gravel.

Naturally, this raised new questions about how the selection committee overlooked a rider with that level of talent. I tend to give them some slack here. Hindsight is always clearer.

Today, the annual conversation continues to evolve. For 2026, Life Time unveiled new selection criteria that include fewer automatic entries for top finishers, the return of the wildcard, and most significantly, a results-based approach. The announcement was applauded by athletes and fans, but the selection still raised questions.

Life Time races were prioritized in the process and there was no standard practice for determining the value of one result over another. A few athletes who were not selected, including Michaela Thompson, highlighted the continued desire for more transparency.

Digging deeper

While the discussion around the selection process comes around every year and only lasts a few weeks, it does present an interesting question. What is the strategic value of certain policies that might make the series seem stagnant or controversial?

In my piece Life Time’s End Game, I explored the financial impact of the Grand Prix on the massive business that is Life Time. In short, the Grand Prix is not a major source of direct revenue, but it is invaluable as a marketing tool and differentiator for the company.

The key takeaway is that the Grand Prix exists as a business asset, and, for this piece, decisions that shape the series should be understood from a strategic perspective.

That said, several decisions by Life Time have raised questions about the long-term sustainability of the series, with the most significant being:

• Exclusivity, which creates small and potentially stagnating fields of competition

• Recycling nearly identical race calendars year after year

• Limited opportunities for development and young talent to enter the series

So, are the decisions guiding these areas the right ones, or should changes be made to ensure the series maintains lasting significance? To evaluate current policies, assess their effectiveness, and identify opportunities to strengthen the Grand Prix, I want to perform a SWOT analysis of the series and the choices Life Time has made to date. The hope is to uncover the best path forward.

What is SWOT?

SWOT is a common business-planning framework used to evaluate strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It offers a simple way to quickly understand the internal and external factors that can influence long-term success.

For this SWOT analysis of the Grand Prix, I’ll take a broad view of the series as a whole, but I’ll focus primarily on the areas highlighted above: exclusivity, the repeated use of similar race calendars, and the lack of a true development pipeline.

Strengths

Clear media narrative

Storytelling has become an essential part of marketing gravel to the masses. Smaller, exclusive fields make it easier to shape narratives, build content, and help fans form real connections with the riders in the Grand Prix.

What sets the Grand Prix apart is not exclusivity itself but the scale of it. Most elite sports are exclusive. The WorldTour might be the most exclusive of all, but with more than one hundred riders on a start line it becomes difficult for fans to follow more than a handful of storylines.

The Gravel Earth Series has the opposite challenge. There is no fixed roster, which makes it harder for fans to understand who is racing for one-off results versus who is competing for the series overall. The organizers do post cumulative points after each event, but that adds another layer of work for fans who want to quickly grasp what the field looks like from race to race.

Brand alignment

Life Time is a luxury fitness brand before anything else. Its gyms and overall identity promote a holistic, lifestyle-driven approach to health rather than a simple place to exercise for an hour.

Positioning the Grand Prix as an exclusive series fits directly within that brand footprint. Calling it the premiere off-road series reinforces Life Time’s focus on being the best and aligns the event with the aspirational image the company has built.

Sponsor value

The minimal changes from season to season—whether in races, rosters, incentives, or media—create stability for sponsors. Brands understand precisely what to expect when partnering with the Grand Prix or sponsoring a rider, which makes the series a reliable marketing platform.

Logistics (strength and weakness)

Reusing the same format and race schedule allows Life Time to streamline logistics for every event, from organization to media coverage to resource management. This efficiency shifts focus from planning to executing activities that add the most value to the series.

For athletes, however, a repeated calendar and format can present logistical challenges, especially for international competitors. The series spans seven months and covers races across the United States, requiring significant travel and coordination.

Weaknesses

Opportunities for young riders

Life Time has introduced a wildcard and a U23 version of the Grand Prix, allowing winners in the men’s and women’s fields to automatically qualify for the pro series. Despite this, the influx of new, young talent into the series remains minimal year after year.

Unlike the WorldTour, which provides constant opportunities for emerging riders, the Grand Prix primarily shines a spotlight on the 25 riders in each field. While athletes outside the series can still compete—and occasionally beat Grand Prix riders to gain attention—the structure of these races rarely favors young competitors. Events like UNBOUND and the Leadville MTB 100 are among the most grueling bike races in the world, often favoring older riders with greater accumulated mileage and experience.

If the series continues to thrive as a popular and exclusive event, filling rosters with talented riders will likely remain manageable. However, without a steady influx of fresh talent, the stories and narratives that drive fan engagement risk becoming stale.

Barriers to entry/fatigue

As noted in the Strengths section, logistics can be a major challenge for athletes, particularly younger ones. The demanding travel and training schedule leads some star athletes to opt out of the series and makes it nearly impossible for younger riders to participate without substantial sponsor support.

Opportunities

I will not expand on these too much here because some will come up again later. I have plenty of ideas for future opportunities including a second tier pro series and potential UCI sanctioning, but for this article I want to stay focused on the most realistic and achievable changes to the Grand Prix.

Field shake-ups

Life Time has the potential to become the premier platform for youth development in the United States by providing greater support for U23 riders. Expanding the wild card to include 5-10 athletes could introduce more fresh talent and dramatically enhance the storytelling narratives within the series.

More transparency in rider selection

The rider selection process remains shrouded in secrecy, with few insider sources. Filming the process live could bring transparency, allowing everyone to see the decisions as they happen. Choices will always face criticism, but at least the logic behind them would be clear.

External media coverage

Currently, Life Time manages the bulk of the media for the series—technically through agencies, but always under Life Time’s oversight. Controlling the narrative is powerful, but expanding reach is even more so. Televising select events or partnering with a streaming platform to create a Grand Prix-focused docuseries could dramatically amplify marketing exposure.

While predictability can dampen excitement, one sport faces a similar challenge: Formula 1. Known for dynasties and minimal roster changes among its twenty drivers, F1 overcame stagnation through storytelling, most notably with the Netflix series Drive to Survive. Life Time can take a page from this approach by continuing to introduce shake-ups and investing in compelling media, the series can maintain excitement despite familiarity.

Teams (possible threat)

Gravel teams present an emerging challenge for the Grand Prix. The series has historically been dominated by privateers, but 2026 is shaping up to be the first season where true team tactics, not just loose alliances, take center stage. This shift gives Life Time an opportunity to rethink the series format or introduce guidelines that define how team competition should function within the Grand Prix.

Threats

Outside competition

The rise of other gravel series creates real competitive pressure for Life Time’s position in pro gravel. UCI circuits and the Gravel Earth Series both feature deeper, more diverse fields and more dynamic race calendars, which can draw attention away from the Grand Prix and challenge Life Time’s hold on the sport.

Reduced applicant fields

There’s been zero indication of Life Time getting fewer applications to the series, but if the series stagnates, it’s possible it will be hard to fill rosters with deep talent.

Stagnation

As mentioned, familiar fields and largely unchanged race calendars can make building hype and compelling media challenging. Over four years, the female overall has had only one winner, the male overall two, and four out of six races have been repeated each season.

Rapidly evolving sport

Gravel is defined by its lack of rules and constant evolution in technology, competition, and media. A fixed series that can’t adapt quickly becomes vulnerable to shifts in the sport and the industry at large.

Lack of future talent

Exclusivity helps the series maintain a full roster of 25 highly skilled athletes, but if gravel development does not expand, the Grand Prix risks losing its status as the premier path to professional racing.

SWOT takeaways

There are many factors shaping the future of the Grand Prix, but the themes around exclusivity, stagnation, and development are the ones with the clearest long term implications. The most obvious takeaway is that exclusivity is deeply embedded in the series from a media and marketing perspective. Removing it would introduce too much instability for a series that is still maturing. In reality, exclusivity is an asset. It gives Life Time leverage, it strengthens the brand footprint, and it delivers what advertisers want most: clear narratives and guaranteed visibility.

The bigger risks lie in stagnation and economic pressure. Recycling the same race calendar limits the dynamic storytelling potential that could elevate the entertainment value of the series. Gravel is still a community driven sport, and mass participation remains central to the Grand Prix’s business model. Rising costs and affordability challenges could decrease participation at events. If that happens, Life Time’s ability to invest in the series and maintain meaningful prize purses could be strained.

These risks do not signal a failing system, but they do highlight where strategic creativity is needed to keep the Grand Prix evolving in a way that preserves its cultural relevance and competitive appeal.

What should stay and what should change

Stay

• Exclusivity: Maintain the selective format to keep the series aligned with Life Time’s premium brand and ensure clear, compelling storytelling that resonates with casual and new fans.

• Prioritization of sponsorships: Continue courting major non endemic sponsors. Stronger partnerships will open doors for better production quality, athlete support, and overall series development.

• Media focus and storytelling: Invest even more in content that pulls in non fans and the broader cycling community. Keep positioning the Grand Prix as a true spectacle.

Change

• U23 funding: Slow the growth of the pro prize purse and redirect more resources toward waiving fees for U23 riders, offering financial support to juniors, and building a genuine feeder pathway into the Grand Prix.

• Wildcard structure: Restructure selection by locking in only 15 athletes and leaving the remaining 10 spots for wildcard qualifiers. This will strengthen early season narratives and reward real time results.

• Controlled media: Invite third party streaming and production partners to elevate the quality of coverage and expand the reach of the series beyond Life Time’s channels.

• Race calendar: Introduce more variety by rotating two races each season. Keep the core events Sea Otter Classic, UNBOUND, Leadville 100 MTB, and Big Sugar Classic, and rotate the remaining two to keep the series fresh.

Continue to innovate

It might be an unpopular take to some, but I will always praise Life Time for what they have done for cycling in the U.S. This SubStack probably wouldn’t even exist without the Grand Prix. With that said, my goal is always to represent the facts and realities that shape both the rider experience and Life Time’s business decisions. Like any company, Life Time has areas where it excels and areas where improvement would meaningfully strengthen the product.

The 2026 Life Time Grand Prix will be exciting to watch and will feature the biggest changes the series has seen since its inception. Even so, it feels critical for Life Time to keep innovating. Not just incremental tweaks, but major moves such as building a full development pipeline, creating more dramatic roster shake ups, and investing more capital into spreading the storylines of the series. At the same time, Life Time should stay true to the elements that made the Grand Prix successful in the first place by keeping the series exclusive and treating it as a marketing platform above all else.

Keep an eye on how teams, the economy, and media interest shape the direction of the Grand Prix. This definitely won’t be the last time we dig into its future.

Ride and rip,

Kyle Dawes