Indoor cycling platform Rouvy has acquired FulGaz from The Ironman Group, a strategic move to enhance its position in the competitive virtual training market. The integration brings FulGaz’s extensive collection of immersive ride simulations to Rouvy’s augmented reality platform, offering riders more variety and realism during their training sessions.
The deal also coincides with a multi-year partnership naming Rouvy as the Official Digital Sports Platform for Ironman events. This partnership will provide triathletes with courses replicating Ironman events, tailored workout plans, and realistic training environments.
Former users of FulGaz — the indoor cycling app with thousands of real-world routes from around the world, including Ironman and Ironman 70.3 courses — will gain access to Rouvy’s augmented routes, interactive features, and gamified elements, enhancing their training experience. Similarly, Rouvy users will benefit from an even larger route library, offering lifelike race simulations and opportunities to prepare for iconic events like the Ironman World Championships.
> Review: FulGaz training app
Petr Samek, co-founder and CEO of Rouvy, said: “We’re at an especially exciting stage of development, growing organically due the engaging and high-quality riding experience our platform provides but also, fortunately, in a position to capitalise on pivotal opportunities as and when they arise.
“In our discussions with Ironman about forming a multi-year partnership, it became apparent that FulGaz would be one such opportunity, so we’re delighted to announce the news of this acquisition and the bringing together of two of the best-loved virtual cycling platforms in the world.”
Scott DeRue, CEO of The Ironman Group said: “We are on a mission to inspire our athletes and elevate their experience on race day and every day in between. In this pursuit, we are investing in innovation and partnering with leading brands that can help us enrich the athlete experience.
“Over the last few years, Rouvy has been on the leading edge of revolutionizing the indoor cycling platform, and with their technology and commitment to innovation, we will elevate the athletes’ virtual training experience to an entirely new level. Pairing our iconic Ironman and Ironman 70.3 routes with Rouvy’s seamless user experience, immersive technology, and unparalleled data analytics, we will help both novice and experienced triathletes perform at their very best and have a lot of fun doing it.”
Rouvy also said that it will be present onsite at Ironman and Ironman 70.3 races throughout the season, serving as the naming partner for transition areas and aiming to provide an enhanced experience to athletes.
Add new comment
45 comments
I was told by the met that because I didn't swerve they said that the close pass didn't affect me, and used that as justification for NFA. So it helps to swerve but not to swear. They expect you to react but only in specific ways that they deem acceptable. Does this apply to victims of other offences I wonder such as when someone is stabbed? Or is it entirely ridiculous police nonsense to avoid having to prosecute anyone because allegedly they can't actually be bothered.?
I was told by the met that because I didn't swerve they said that the close pass didn't affect me, and used that as justification for NFA
This is the police dodge recently described on here as 'cyclist must demonstrate that he has been inconvenienced by the close pass'. Start swerving as a result, and you'll be under the wheels- which is an outcome they'd be happy with because police officers are anti-cyclist bastards! If only I'd swerved eh?
https://upride.cc/incident/sk19evw_stagecoach42_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/sc19usu_brosterbuilders_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/yx74soj_greenpass_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/ca11abd_blackpoolboilers_closepass/
It can only be dumb police who've never ridden a bike who've come up with this swerving nonsense.
Unfortunately, you'll find the vast majority of the decisions made by the 'police' in these instances are actually made by civilians employed to deal with this kind of 'admin'.
the vast majority of the decisions made by the 'police' in these instances are actually made by civilians
Even if true, this is irrelevant - Filth aren't permitted to dodge out of trouble with "nothing to do with us, squire!"
I thought civilians processed all the work around the submissions,filtered the obviously no action ones, sent the letters out etc, but the choice of NIP or not had to be made by a police officer.
else they could just literally just hire more civillians to do this or even use AI to deal with it.
Interesting point ref processing resources. Just yesterday I had a phone call from an actual Op Snap review team member. I've spent a few years submitting footage, usually only doing the worst ones as I'd kind of worked out that the threshold for a response of "letter sent to keeper regarding driving standards" or "offence(s) identified, NIP sent, keep the footage" resulted from near death experiences. Usually nothing meaning NFA.
So I picked up, don't usually answer withheld numbers but I did because I'd been dealing with guarantor paperwork on daughter's student accommodation so thought it may be that. Anyway he introduced himself as Op Snap review team and asked if any of the other riders or I had front facing footage as the recent clip was "definitely reckless or careless driving" and before proceeding to next step, wanted to know if I'd be sure to attend court if it came to it, because, due to not just being "due care and attention" the driver would probably contest it because of the potential outcome.
He said "I don't know where to start, overtaking when cyclists are turning right, on a blind hill summit, on a junction, forcing oncoming traffic to brake to avoid a head-on, they're definitely getting done for something" - and it's going to be processed anyway regardless of additional camera evidence.
We got chatting, he said he was a front line officer for many years, now back office staff and just started semi-retirement job on the Op Snap desk. Also mentioned he was a cyclist too (🤔) and in his experience, cyclists and motorcyclists make better drivers.
So it seems in my area at least, that the civvies on the Op Snap desk are not just footage review droids, they seem to be made up of former officers with experience who actually care.
In summary I was very encouraged by this, especially as he said "keep them coming, tell your club mates to use cameras if they can"
Result I think. Memory card removed, labelled and stored for the next 6 months.
Could you let us know which police force this is.
Dorset, and their Op Snap portal also covers Devon & Cornwall.
It was Gloucestershire and here is the link to the article
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer...
And here are a few examples to confirm that the opinion is adhered to
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-786-293709
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-779-293395
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-603-overtaking-driver-squeeze...
And finally one where the police officer actually says I've been inconvenienced but still no action.
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
Although they have now admitted that that was a mistake when I questioned it.
Excellent group of links, Bungle! Thanks. They will go into my list for the probably doomed attempt to expose the bloody awful and anti-cyclist police.
It [the police dodge recently described on here as 'cyclist must demonstrate that he has been inconvenienced by the close pass'] was Gloucestershire and here is the link to the article
So, has Gloucestershire police actually prosecuted anybody for close-passing you? (This question is, of course, from Lancashire which has never prosecuted and has long since ceased responding in any way to reports from people who annoy them by keeping detailed records!)
Have the officers stated in writing that any of these dismissed cases resulted in the joke advice letter or the even more joke words of advice? Your series of links to stories and videos on here demonstrates the evolution and development of the Gloucestershire 'inconvenienced' dodge- where they have decided beforehand that there's going to be no prosecution for close-passing cyclists no matter how close or how fast, and they're looking for an easy formal way to write that down without much effort. They have invented the term because of a complete lack of cycling empathy- in other words, they're not cyclists and have no intention of either cycling or considering what it's like to be on the receiving end of attacks like these, or they wouldn't be using the dismissive word 'inconvenienced' and the stupid 'the driver had to close pass you because of the entirely unforeseeable event that traffic might come along in the other lane'
https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/du61vhj_stuartbraithwaitebuilders_dwlcrossclosepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/pn14msx_coachcarpetsducato_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/g6noope10zvf_vwaudi_veryclosepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/yj60kgzar12way_brethertonsarchwaybuses_closepass/
Not as far as I know. The only points and fine I have been told about so far was a pass on a blind bend. I was out in the middle of the lane as I knew it would be unsafe to pass but sure enough a driver behind attempted it just before a supermarket delivery driver appeared round the bend. I had room to move in but the oncoming driver had to pull in and stop to avoid being hit. I strongly suspect that it was the inconveniencing of the driver that caused the prosecution but I can't be sure. I have had a few with warning letters and recently some advisory letters but not for close passes. There are quite a few reports where they have said they would take action but they were less than a year ago so I haven't asked for the outcomes yet.
Here is a still of a recent close pass that I reported hoping for an advisory. It didn't get one. I did question it and was told that the driver was on the other side of the road so what more could they do. I didn't reply saying that they should obey rule 153 and not overtake other moving road users in a traffic calming area and allow cyclists to pass through traffic calming measures. Not to mention leave enough room.
The difference between Lancashire and Gloucestershire is that Gloucestershire let me know what they have done and why. Their reasoning is wrong in the view of a great many people but at least they are doing what they believe to be right and judging by the outcomes of some court cases on here they may, unfortunately, have a point.
The only acceptable response is to pick yourself up, apologise to the driver for delaying them (if they stopped) and then report the incident when you get home.
...and i would imagine the Magistrates also didn't issue a warrant for the drivers arrest as he was 'driving whilst disqualified'. However, that should have been picked up by the prosecution!
Pages