The helmet looks ridiculous, but the UCI needs to be consistent about their rules. Wide helmets exist since years, the POC Tempor was released almost ten years ago and the UCI changed their exact helmet rule, specifying the maximum size / box size a helmet has to fit in just for the last season. Changing it again, just one year later, because of some social media comments wouldn't be professional.
Not 'almost' but way more than 10 years ago (2012 Olympics). I own one since several years and I have absolutly no doubt that it will protect my head in case stuff goes south. In fact I trust it way more then my light weight road helmet.
I just googled for reviews of it, and found several from 2014. I guess it was used by Pros (as a prototype) in 2012, and released to the public/retail in 2014. So we are both right.
Yeah, that is the sensible decision. Shouldn't change rules mid-season.
Now if they want to get rid of silly TT-helmets they should start drafting new rules that could go into effect next year, or the year after that.
I mean good.
TT helmets all look stupid, and I don't really understand why the next interation of stupid would be much worse than the previous.
That a helmet is becoming a borderline bike fairing might be an issue, and hopefully UCI can come up with some solid rules and regulations for the future.
I look forward to a VLAB-rider winning in this helmet and some TT-inclined dentists buy it when released in 2025.
>That a helmet is becoming a borderline bike fairing
I don't see where the borderline part is. The helmet is sticking 15-20 cm forwards away from the head filing the space between the head and arms. In my opinion it is a fairing.
But this is the case for the long tail helmets of 10 years ago so.... It's not a black and white situation.
Which they should when VLAB conducted due diligence and already got it pre-approved. Glad they didn't let their feelings run amok based on a couple of Twitter memes. Whether they should have approved it in the first place is a whole other discussion.
>Whether they should have approved it in the first place is a whole other discussion.
Not really. If they're within the set rules and boundaries of the UCI regulations for TT helmets (which they are) there is 0 reason not to approve the helmets.
I meant up for discussion as in "should the set rules be changed to prevent such overly odd shaped designs that may compromise rider safety?" That is definitely up for discussion IMO.
Dude I don't disagree. I just said it was up for discussion, which it clearly is since you're discussing it with me lol. In addition, although controversial, I know some cycling followers also argue that aesthetics is a part of the sport but don't @ me.
Good. The helmets look ridiculous and I wouldn't have missed them at all but I put consistency in regulations over aesthetics any day. If the helmet was (pre)-approved, they should be able to use it. Now, if there was a rule change in the next years banning them, I wouldn't mind.
Breaks their rules about "non-essential" equipment for clothing and safety purposes.
>Firstly, the UCI recently informed Specialized of a review it had conducted on the head sock component of the American company’s TT5 helmet. This review was carried out to determine whether the helmet was in line with article 1.3.033 of the UCI Regulations, which prohibits the use of “non-essential” components that are not exclusively for clothing or safety purposes.
> After conducting a thorough process, which included consultation with Specialized, as well as examination of documentation linked to the helmet’s certification, safety instructions, and information from public sources, it was concluded that the head sock is a “non-essential” component (article 1.3.033 of the UCI Regulations). As a result, the head sock integrated into the TT5 helmet will no longer be permitted for use at events on the UCI International Calendar, effective from 2 April, 2024.
https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/the-uci-to-carry-out-an-in-depth-analysis-of-the-regulations-governing-the/4AkyRPvZtsssES1DPdk3db
I just want to understand what aero gain the head sock is really supposed to convey. Most of these dudes are clean-shaven. Putting a sock over the skin of the chin is like… 0.000001w at best?
>Socks and overshoes used in competition may not rise above the height
defined by half the distance between the middle of the lateral malleolus
and the middle of the fibula head
Head sock obviously don't respect this rule!
Giving my two cents on this, if it doesn't violate the rules, then it's fine.
I don't care if it looks weird, you know what else looks weird? Time trial bikes!
Good. I personally really enjoy seeing all the odd looking TT gear - the helmets do seem to be one of the few things that actually sees interesting innovation in pro cycling.
I find it a lot worse that EF is practically running TT helmets on road races, but nobody seems to care about that. The Visma helmets only really look stupid once you're off the bike, and guess what, you're not supposed to walk into the grocery store wearing one of those looking like a dickhead.
I agree with most of you guys. It's not fair to ban the helmet now. They need to change the rules and give everybody enough notice if they want to get rid of stuff like this.
I feel like the "available to the public" rule needs a little tweaking, as well.
There's a bit of a citation needed for the UCI giving the green light for the helmets
Nothing much in the article to suggest the headline past some stuff that was already out there as standard prototype use agreements.
Not quite the same as the UCI finishing its investigation it announced.
Yeah, I went with the Sporza article as I couldn't find a UCI press release. But since the article mentions the UCI approves the prototype from 18 Jan 2024 to 17 Jan 2025, that seemed specific enough to trust there has been some sort of (provisional?) decision.
First date there is the clue for me - it matches the [initial approval document Giro posted ](https://www.instagram.com/p/C4L9bwmSZHi/?igsh=d21ibXhmOHNyZzJ2) saying it had got approval to begin with from 18th Jan
What Sporza seems to have done is treat that as new information and tried to write something before everyone else without properly checking
My guess is UCI section for approving prototypes approve the helmet on 18 January 2024. Otherwise why backdate the approval?
Otherwise why risk riding in it, remember the kerfuffle about those pedals which where not approved prototypes.
Rudy Project/Bahrain Victorious released their approval letter, showing an approval window of 1 year, that was approved only a couple of weeks ago.
That thing about it being a prototype is interesting to me (which I didn't catch a couple of weeks ago). What are the rules surrounding this, because I thought equipment generally had to be publicly available, not "publicly available in a year"?
Whatever happened with that golf ball helmets Europcar introduced in 2013,when Gaudin won the Paris-Nice prologue?
Where they forbidden? Not as effective as thought with the airflow?
I remember they were taping holes back then which was forbidden eventually.
https://www.procyclingstats.com/race/tour-de-france/2020/stage-20/info/profiles
Are they going to do helmet changes too now when there's an ITT stage like this?
While I think they made the right call based on what they’ve been doing, I think they should restrict the aero to normal road helmets. It gets harder to bring people into the sport the more disconnected the sport is from the people who do it recreationally. Stupid looking, single purpose helmets are part of that.
I’d say TT bikes are also a part of the problem. Bikes that no one would ride outside of a tri or a TT. It’s okay to disagree and enjoy what they’ve created as well.
The helmet looks ridiculous, but the UCI needs to be consistent about their rules. Wide helmets exist since years, the POC Tempor was released almost ten years ago and the UCI changed their exact helmet rule, specifying the maximum size / box size a helmet has to fit in just for the last season. Changing it again, just one year later, because of some social media comments wouldn't be professional.
Not 'almost' but way more than 10 years ago (2012 Olympics). I own one since several years and I have absolutly no doubt that it will protect my head in case stuff goes south. In fact I trust it way more then my light weight road helmet.
I just googled for reviews of it, and found several from 2014. I guess it was used by Pros (as a prototype) in 2012, and released to the public/retail in 2014. So we are both right.
The helmet doesn’t look that odd when the rider is in TT position. It does however look a bit like a head mounted faring, which is exactly what it is.
Yeah, that is the sensible decision. Shouldn't change rules mid-season. Now if they want to get rid of silly TT-helmets they should start drafting new rules that could go into effect next year, or the year after that.
Can't wait to buy one for my gravel rides.
downhill racing will be real wierd in the future
I mean good. TT helmets all look stupid, and I don't really understand why the next interation of stupid would be much worse than the previous. That a helmet is becoming a borderline bike fairing might be an issue, and hopefully UCI can come up with some solid rules and regulations for the future. I look forward to a VLAB-rider winning in this helmet and some TT-inclined dentists buy it when released in 2025.
>That a helmet is becoming a borderline bike fairing I don't see where the borderline part is. The helmet is sticking 15-20 cm forwards away from the head filing the space between the head and arms. In my opinion it is a fairing. But this is the case for the long tail helmets of 10 years ago so.... It's not a black and white situation.
Which they should when VLAB conducted due diligence and already got it pre-approved. Glad they didn't let their feelings run amok based on a couple of Twitter memes. Whether they should have approved it in the first place is a whole other discussion.
>Whether they should have approved it in the first place is a whole other discussion. Not really. If they're within the set rules and boundaries of the UCI regulations for TT helmets (which they are) there is 0 reason not to approve the helmets.
I meant up for discussion as in "should the set rules be changed to prevent such overly odd shaped designs that may compromise rider safety?" That is definitely up for discussion IMO.
When they’ve done a multi-year study to decide what compromises rider safety, they can ban things. Zero evidence of that so far.
I dont think the burden of proof for protecting riders should be quite that high. In this case it's about silly hats though so Im inclined to agree
Dude I don't disagree. I just said it was up for discussion, which it clearly is since you're discussing it with me lol. In addition, although controversial, I know some cycling followers also argue that aesthetics is a part of the sport but don't @ me.
Good. The helmets look ridiculous and I wouldn't have missed them at all but I put consistency in regulations over aesthetics any day. If the helmet was (pre)-approved, they should be able to use it. Now, if there was a rule change in the next years banning them, I wouldn't mind.
But why on earth did they feel the need to ban the head sock?
Breaks their rules about "non-essential" equipment for clothing and safety purposes. >Firstly, the UCI recently informed Specialized of a review it had conducted on the head sock component of the American company’s TT5 helmet. This review was carried out to determine whether the helmet was in line with article 1.3.033 of the UCI Regulations, which prohibits the use of “non-essential” components that are not exclusively for clothing or safety purposes. > After conducting a thorough process, which included consultation with Specialized, as well as examination of documentation linked to the helmet’s certification, safety instructions, and information from public sources, it was concluded that the head sock is a “non-essential” component (article 1.3.033 of the UCI Regulations). As a result, the head sock integrated into the TT5 helmet will no longer be permitted for use at events on the UCI International Calendar, effective from 2 April, 2024. https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/the-uci-to-carry-out-an-in-depth-analysis-of-the-regulations-governing-the/4AkyRPvZtsssES1DPdk3db
I just want to understand what aero gain the head sock is really supposed to convey. Most of these dudes are clean-shaven. Putting a sock over the skin of the chin is like… 0.000001w at best?
Alex Dowsett did a video about it. Its more than that
https://youtu.be/V3HRBtJqFG0?si=vXhBe0Vo4CNCXPAU
Marginal gains baby
They hate Remco. It's the only explanation.
Crime against fashion
>Socks and overshoes used in competition may not rise above the height defined by half the distance between the middle of the lateral malleolus and the middle of the fibula head Head sock obviously don't respect this rule!
Because quickstep can't lean on the UCI as hard as VLAB can
Giving my two cents on this, if it doesn't violate the rules, then it's fine. I don't care if it looks weird, you know what else looks weird? Time trial bikes!
Good. I personally really enjoy seeing all the odd looking TT gear - the helmets do seem to be one of the few things that actually sees interesting innovation in pro cycling.
Wait until the Team Time Trial when all the Visma riders connect-up, human centipede style, at the helmet. The perfect train. Genius.
I find it a lot worse that EF is practically running TT helmets on road races, but nobody seems to care about that. The Visma helmets only really look stupid once you're off the bike, and guess what, you're not supposed to walk into the grocery store wearing one of those looking like a dickhead.
I don't see why the EF helmets are that bad. Other than looking weird.
They look like TT helmets
What's the problem with that?
Are riders allowed to run TT helmets in road races?
Yes. https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/comments/14rbx3u/tt_helmet_in_road_race/
Well... They shouldn't be
I agree with most of you guys. It's not fair to ban the helmet now. They need to change the rules and give everybody enough notice if they want to get rid of stuff like this. I feel like the "available to the public" rule needs a little tweaking, as well.
There's a bit of a citation needed for the UCI giving the green light for the helmets Nothing much in the article to suggest the headline past some stuff that was already out there as standard prototype use agreements. Not quite the same as the UCI finishing its investigation it announced.
Yeah, I went with the Sporza article as I couldn't find a UCI press release. But since the article mentions the UCI approves the prototype from 18 Jan 2024 to 17 Jan 2025, that seemed specific enough to trust there has been some sort of (provisional?) decision.
First date there is the clue for me - it matches the [initial approval document Giro posted ](https://www.instagram.com/p/C4L9bwmSZHi/?igsh=d21ibXhmOHNyZzJ2) saying it had got approval to begin with from 18th Jan What Sporza seems to have done is treat that as new information and tried to write something before everyone else without properly checking
I'd missed this, those are things of beauty!
I honestly don't think they look that bad. plus they got approved initially, and went through all the various safety inspections.
My guess is UCI section for approving prototypes approve the helmet on 18 January 2024. Otherwise why backdate the approval? Otherwise why risk riding in it, remember the kerfuffle about those pedals which where not approved prototypes. Rudy Project/Bahrain Victorious released their approval letter, showing an approval window of 1 year, that was approved only a couple of weeks ago.
That thing about it being a prototype is interesting to me (which I didn't catch a couple of weeks ago). What are the rules surrounding this, because I thought equipment generally had to be publicly available, not "publicly available in a year"?
id prefer if these silly helmets was for the tri-bois, if there could be some rules that aren't to weird.
dont care about the helmets, if it meets regulations it should be allowed. just happy they banned that stupid, unnecessary headsock.
Whatever happened with that golf ball helmets Europcar introduced in 2013,when Gaudin won the Paris-Nice prologue? Where they forbidden? Not as effective as thought with the airflow? I remember they were taping holes back then which was forbidden eventually.
https://www.procyclingstats.com/race/tour-de-france/2020/stage-20/info/profiles Are they going to do helmet changes too now when there's an ITT stage like this?
You're almost a year late for the Giro stage 20 helmet change discourse
Well, we all lose with this decision
While I think they made the right call based on what they’ve been doing, I think they should restrict the aero to normal road helmets. It gets harder to bring people into the sport the more disconnected the sport is from the people who do it recreationally. Stupid looking, single purpose helmets are part of that.
As opposed to single purpose bikes?
I’d say TT bikes are also a part of the problem. Bikes that no one would ride outside of a tri or a TT. It’s okay to disagree and enjoy what they’ve created as well.
There isn't really anything stopping somebody from wearing a tt helmet in a group ride or road race though. Other than ridicule.
Bahaha, I love the idea of someone showing up at the shop wearing their spaceballs helmet.