Cycling UK Forum

gaz wrote:1878: Founded as Bicycle Touring Club
1883: Rebranded Cyclists' Touring Club
1886: Traditional logo usurped by that ghastly Winged Wheel.
1906: Members voted to rebrand as The Touring Club and to amend the constitution to let in all tourists. High Court rejects application and we get stuck with focusing on those pesky cyclists.
1998: Rebranding, the current squiggly bicycle thing appears together with "CTC", "Working for Cycling", "CTC Right to Ride" and "CTC Helpline".
2012: Following a vote by the members, the Cyclists Touring Club becomes a registered Charity, "the national cycling charity" adopted as a strapline.
2013: Rebranding process announced. You did all contact your Councillor and let them know your opinions, didn't you?
2014: Council approves in principle to a change in trading name with "National Cycling Association" the hot favourite.
2016: Rebranding process announced to be complete "We are Cycling UK", "Cycling UK". Poll of the Whole Club anticipated as the rebrand has come as a complete shock .

Probably missed a few.

Lordy, gaz... have National Office got a direct line to your account?

It's all from memory . According to records* I have been a member for over 150 years: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=62690&p=617003&#p617003

*National Office figures, must be true

Wow! Well as an outsider unable to join the CTC anyway (yank with British cycling fetish) I'll enjoy my old CTC Gazettes, the histories, some tour books, a couple of winged wheel badges, cycle touring, etc.

I like the first 100 years' concept, (almost as old) WW logo, and name of the Cyclists Touring Club even if I wasn't a member, though! -- Plus (the original) winged wheel stuff - of the League of American Wheelmen - is harder to find and more expen$ive on eb! (the former LAW now also slightly renamed and turned more into into a wishy-washy big city politically correct fundraising scheme)

But since they're (CTC) going for a 'let's make it look like as much as possible all the other ugly modern logos these days', I can't resist slandering the absurdity of modern logo designs in general!

So I'd suggest adding somewhere into the CTC or whatever logo what I call the ever-popular 'glee figure', a stylized, usually head-severed, usually very colourful 'jumping for glee!!' monster of the type especially popular for any of the many (US) hospital/drug/insurance conglomerates/rackets - see for example:

https://www.google.com/search?q=health+ ... 0&bih=1501

(ironically, the first I started to see this spooky glee figure was in the early 1990s when some Western tobacco company was pushing a brand of cigarettes called 'west' in the former USSR; the label had a glee figure - then I noticed glee figures appearing everywhere, as if some demonic invasion!)

My point is that the more bureaucratic, less 'grassroots', and more image-focused an organization gets, the more important its logo seems to become to them (usually along with some awful committee-generated 'vision statement'!), and like most everything else modern, it's usually uglier and more generic than what served well before!

And that's sort of funny but mostly tragic!

AndyK wrote:Well look what I just found - a new trademark application from Cyclists' Touring Club Ltd, submitted yesterday:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00003150027

Wow that really stands out! It is so memorable and fresh and exciting!

NOT.

Hi Gaz , You missed out one of the banner headlines used by "OUR CLUB"? "Keeping You On Two Wheels"!
Very inclusive that one wasn't it? What idiot would want to use more than two wheels to cycle!
Oh Yes, Both of Us. MM, CTC and Tricycle Association

Just a thought, but I wonder how these folk -

http://www.cyclesuk.com/en/About-Us/cc-1.aspx

will think about the (former) CTC picking up a title so similar to theirs? Or will the (new) CTC, sorry Cycle(ing) UK be mistaken for a rival bike shop?

W

Whimwham7 wrote:Just a thought, but I wonder how these folk -

http://www.cyclesuk.com/en/About-Us/cc-1.aspx

will think about the (former) CTC picking up a title so similar to theirs? Or will the (new) CTC, sorry Cycle(ing) UK be mistaken for a rival bike shop?

W

As Cycles UK appear to define the UK as "Essex and Kent" I don't think they can seriously complain.*



*(The official government definition of UK is, of course, "London and the North".)

An interesting read in the light of the rebrand: https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blo ... verything/

I like the notion that "Beating..." can be an alternative to "...UK" or "We Are..." or "Action on...". What would CTC be? "Beating Motorists"? "Beating Bad Cycleway Design"? "Beating The Department For Transport Around The Head With A Ten-Pound Clue-Bat"?

Beating dependency on motor transport ?

Beating dependency on expensive and polluting transport ?

Beating the perils of an inactive lifestyle ?

Liberate your life, your health and your fitness ?

. . .. Er, perhaps I'll just crawl back into retirement

Logos
Can you tell the differences?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=old+l ... 66&bih=653

Philip Benstead wrote:Logos
Can you tell the differences?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=old+l ... 66&bih=653

Yes. That's a logo change, not a brand change. If you can't get that difference maybe that's the problem...

So, what do some other designers think?

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_name_and_logo_for_cycling_uk.php wrote:there is no saving this logo, which is a shame because cycling is ripe with references that can translate into great visuals

(hat tip to http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/brand- ... gn.199668/ )