Dulwich Hill Bicycle Club

MAMIL – Middle Aged Men in Lycra.

Believe this term has been bandied around for about a year or two now. At the moment the discussion appears to primarily focus disproportionately on men.

A 2010 British study by Mintel, a British market research firm, claims that bike sales are being propelled by 30 to 45 year old men with families, who instead of going off and buying a sports car as they approach middle age, now go for a high-end bike instead.

The report also made a stinging observation claiming, “Thirty or 40 years ago, people would ride a bike for economic reasons, but our research suggests that nowadays a bicycle is more a lifestyle addition, a way of demonstrating how affluent you are”.

……ouch ……

Assume this is a global trend, particularly within affluent sections of society.

According to the Mintel report, MAMILS are:

1. middle aged 30-45 year olds
2. largely male (debatable)
3. read broadsheet newspapers eg. Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, as opposed to tabloids like the Daily Telegraph.
4. shop at ‘Waitrose’ supermarkets ie. upmarket UK supermarket
5. have a household income in excess of £50,000 (AUD$ 73K) annually.
6. ride their bikes at least once a week.

You can get access to the full report at this page:
http://road.cc/content/news/21443-new-r ... -men-lycra

I think we have our fair share of MAWIL's too...

Pff we aren't all middle aged.

Pff we aren't all middle aged.

Tends to creep up you. B4 u know it, you're 50 with kids.

OMG, I am not even within the criteria age range!

Actually, I object to the age range for as defined above. Given Cadel et al and cycling peaks in the early 30s, it's ridiculous to include the 30-something in this group. I'd think MAMIL could be far better defined in the 40-60 age range.

OMG, I am not even within the criteria age range!

ur a OMIL

ur a OMIL

Thank you so much for your support, Hung!

1. middle aged 30-45 year olds
2. largely male (debatable)
3. read broadsheet newspapers eg. Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, as opposed to tabloids like the Daily Telegraph.
4. shop at ‘Waitrose’ supermarkets ie. upmarket UK supermarket
5. have a household income in excess of £50,000 (AUD$ 73K) annually.
6. ride their bikes at least once a week.

Check, check and check.

I meet all the requirements of a MAIL except for no.4. Not sure we have a Waitrose equivalent here - maybe Fratelli Fresh?

Should I be concerned?

add some years to #1 and substitute 'Carriage Works Markets' for 'Waitrose' in #4
and you've got me pegged, how embarrassing.

A pedaling cliche at fifty!

lol!! I will be 30 this year!!! I would have said it is 35-60 that really has the look, there are a lot of young lookin cyclists.

(I agree with Weiyun actually, I don't think of the people that still race elite as fitting in really)

“Thirty or 40 years ago, people would ride a bike for economic reasons, but our research suggests that nowadays a bicycle is more a lifestyle addition, a way of demonstrating how affluent you are”.

……ouch ……

why ouch? I think that a large proportion of the cycling community fits this! Randwick and Easts especially!

Meet the other criteria except I'm 25...

This is all such a load of crap. The logic is seriously flawed and I'm surprised that it's being taken so seriously.

Really, the reason we ride bicycles is NOT because:

1. Bicycles and gear are expensive. That's why the demographic reflects the more affluent, which tends toward the older and more established.
2. The older mean age is also because it's difficult to keep riding when you have children and a demanding or jealous partner.
3. Children also cause the gender AND the age imbalance.
4. Cycling is inherently dangerous and men are also more likely to take greater risks.
5. Bicycle riding is a function of the inherent underlying intelligence of the demographic, who listen to health advice (from good newspapers) and watch their weight, don't drink or smoke much and get regular vigorous exercise. This is reflected in their earning capacity and where they can afford to shop.

No, this is basket-weaving, socialist , behaviourist apologism. I ride my bicycle to show the world how affluent I am.

say it proud MAMILs, OMILs and EWILs*:

"Once just a cliche, not merely an acronym, we stake our claim as a demographic!"

*only a fool would categorise any of the W in the club as MA or O - all seem pretty E from my point of view.

I don't think anyone has to care. All the report is trying to do is to work out a marketing strategy so that they can sell more bike stuff to this group. Doesn't say anything about anybody, just is a market research firm's analysis of the potential market.

Would be handy if they were trying to market to me. Then I'd be able to buy a bike off the rack.

why ouch? I think that a large proportion of the cycling community fits this! Randwick and Easts especially!

I think it's permeating through every club! Look at all those Colnago, Pinarello and BMC riders out there.

My legs are too good looking

OMG..... they're right!....

My legs are too good looking

Of course!! It's not to show off how affluent we are at all, ...it's to show how BEAUTIFUL we are! .....and the bikes are part of US, so they have to be BEAUTIFUL too...... Thanks Mike! You've made sense of this for me!

Better than being a MATPEFF (Middle aged toothless pie eating football fan) if you ask me. All it really means is cheap colnago's on eBay in a few years, and some other dudes with hairy legs to ride with.

I'm a MAMIL, except when I'm not in Lycra, which is actually most of the time.

Cheap Colnagos? Never going to happen, on Ebay or anywhere else!