New Visma "Aero" helmets

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by benb

Eh.. I would trust CPSC, SNELL, or the European helmet certification org before the UCI.

I would be really curious if it would pass any of the tougher certifications.

I don't think the UCI is disputing whether or not the helmet is safe to use.

They are concerned about whether the helmet breaks the 'spirit of cycling' even though it meets all of the UCI rules.

[benb]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

I don't think the UCI is disputing whether or not the helmet is safe to use.

They are concerned about whether the helmet breaks the 'spirit of cycling' even though it meets all of the UCI rules.

Yes I guess I'm conflating safety and aero, both of which could be issues.

I just would be really curious to see a report on any of the long tail aero helmets.

The long tail unless it breaks off very easily seems like it would increase the exact thing that MIPS aims to minimize.

I would suspect without breakaway on the aero portions there is some limit on size before the helmet starts to fail the safety tests. Most of the test organization claim the rounder a helmet is the more effective it will be.

[JedB]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

I don't think the UCI is disputing whether or not the helmet is safe to use.

They are concerned about whether the helmet breaks the 'spirit of cycling' even though it meets all of the UCI rules.

Giro passed the "letter of the law" test.
They have the letter from the law (UCI) to prove it.

The helmets are not:
Mechancial doping
Bio-doping
explicitly prohibited (at this time)

so, i'm not sure how this violates the 'spirit of cycling' or as you stated in a different post "implicit rules."

UCI said "ok" and now they are re-thikning. That's UCI fault, not Giro fault.

[dancinkozmo]

this is what happens when you let A.I design a helmet

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

Yes I guess I'm conflating safety and aero, both of which could be issues.

I just would be really curious to see a report on any of the long tail aero helmets.

The long tail unless it breaks off very easily seems like it would increase the exact thing that MIPS aims to minimize.

I would suspect without breakaway on the aero portions there is some limit on size before the helmet starts to fail the safety tests. Most of the test organization claim the rounder a helmet is the more effective it will be.

In the US, all helmets have to meet CPSC regulations, and in Europe they must meet EN 1078. The regulations only test linear g-forces under impact, not the angular forces that MIPs attempts to mitigate. The aero shrouds on the Visma helmet appear to mostly outside the areas tested for impact under the regulations. However, in regard to your comment about breakaway portions of a helmet, the CPSC helmet regulation FAQ says this:

A projection that extends more than 0.28 inches (7 mm) from the outside surface of a helmet must break away or collapse when you hit it with the same force that the helmet receives when you test it for impact attenuation. The inside surface of a helmet may not have any projection that extends more than 0.08 inches (2 mm) inside the helmet.

[benb]

Right, but how many of these helmets aren't even on sale and does the UCI actually care if they meet EN 1078?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

I don't think the UCI is disputing whether or not the helmet is safe to use.

They are concerned about whether the helmet breaks the 'spirit of cycling' even though it meets all of the UCI rules.

The spirit of cycling is whatever the aesthetic tastes of the UCI happen to be at any given time.

The spirit of gravel is whatever Peter Stetina thinks will help him win without training hard.

Both are bad frameworks for designing rules.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

Right, but how many of these helmets aren't even on sale and does the UCI actually care if they meet EN 1078?

According to the UCI commercialization regulations, implicitly the helmets do have meet EN 1078 (and/or other regulations). All equipment used in UCI competitions has to be offered to sale to the general public within 12 months of their first use in competition. To be offered for sale, bicycle helmets legally must meet the regulations in the market where they are sold (EN 1078 in the EEC, CPSC in the USA, etc.). If helmets can't meet the regulatory standards, they can't be sold, and therefore they can't be used in UCI competitions.

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by JedB

Giro passed the "letter of the law" test.
They have the letter from the law (UCI) to prove it.

The helmets are not:
Mechancial doping
Bio-doping
explicitly prohibited (at this time)

so, i'm not sure how this violates the 'spirit of cycling' or as you stated in a different post "implicit rules."

UCI said "ok" and now they are re-thikning. That's UCI fault, not Giro fault.

I am not blaming Giro for this in any way. The UCI are the idiots in this saga.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

I am not blaming Giro for this in any way. The UCI are the idiots in this saga.

I don't think it's a question of blame - the question is whether or not the racers should be allowed to continue using this aero head fairing, um, I mean helmet.