New Visma "Aero" helmets

[mcteague]

So the UCI says farings are not allowed on bikes but head farings are fine? At some point they should say helmets cannot extend some determined amount beyond the internal circumference. Otherwise it’s just a faring more than a protective device.

Tim

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by benb

With all the regs on bikes I don’t see why they wouldn’t formalize some rules about helmets.

At some point these increase injury risk in a crash vs a normal helmet as they’d be able to torque the neck more.

Somebody should fair in the whole bike for a laugh but it’s only connected to the riders head.

Giro put out a little bit of a sassy post today (view here) noting that they had the helmet approved by the UCI, and it meets the rules.

UCI have banned the Specialized head sock thingy and have now said they're reviewing helmets in general as a category. Typical UCI stuff.

[reuben]

Originally Posted by jimoots

Giro put out a little bit of a sassy post today (view here) noting that they had the helmet approved by the UCI, and it meets the rules.

UCI have banned the Specialized head sock thingy and have now said they're reviewing helmets in general as a category. Typical UCI stuff.

Before today's Paris-Nice stage one of the Visma riders was asked about the helmets. The interviewer kept pushing for something more sensational, but all that the Visma rider would say (diplomatically, at least twice) was that last year the UCI said the helmets were fine, but that the UCI changes the rules and/or their mind sometimes. It wasn't hard to read between the lines.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by jimoots

Giro put out a little bit of a sassy post today (view here) noting that they had the helmet approved by the UCI, and it meets the rules.

UCI have banned the Specialized head sock thingy and have now said they're reviewing helmets in general as a category. Typical UCI stuff.

The helmet may meet the expllicit rules, but it may not not meet the implicit rules. Rule books can't foresee every possible iteration and variation of equipment design, so they often include broad rules that can give officials leeway to react to unforeseen situations. For example, the rules probably don't explicitly state that a rider's bike can't have a device that lays down an oil slick behind it, which might cause chasing riders to slip out and crash. But that would be covered under a broad rule that bikes can't present safety hazards to other riders.

The UCI rule book has explicit rules on the maximum dimensions of a helmet, and the Visma helmet likely fits inside those limits. But the rules also state that bikes and rider's clothing can not use fairings, i.e. have attachments or shapes that serve no purpose other than to improve aerodynamics. A helmet is supposed to provide head protection in case of a crash, although it may be shaped to minimize aerodynamic drag while serving it's safety function. But the shape of the Visma helmet, particularly the shroudiing along the lower edge of the helmet, clearly provides no crash protection, and its only function is to improve aerodynamics (i.e. is effectively a head fairing). So it could be banned under the fairing rule.

[exapkib]

I think you got the quotes around the wrong word in the thread title. I propose:

New Visma Aero "Helmets"

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

The helmet may meet the expllicit rules, but it may not not meet the implicit rules. Rule books can't foresee every possible iteration and variation of equipment design, so they often include broad rules that can give officials leeway to react to unforeseen situations. For example, the rules probably don't explicitly state that a rider's bike can't have a device that lays down an oil slick behind it, which might cause chasing riders to slip out and crash. But that would be covered under a broad rule that bikes can't present safety hazards to other riders.

The UCI rule book has explicit rules on the maximum dimensions of a helmet, and the Visma helmet likely fits inside those limits. But the rules also state that bikes and rider's clothing can not use fairings, i.e. have attachments or shapes that serve no purpose other than to improve aerodynamics. A helmet is supposed to provide head protection in case of a crash, although it may be shaped to minimize aerodynamic drag while serving it's safety function. But the shape of the Visma helmet, particularly the shroudiing along the lower edge of the helmet, clearly provides no crash protection, and its only function is to improve aerodynamics (i.e. is effectively a head fairing). So it could be banned under the fairing rule.

Understood what you are saying, but in this instance Giro sought approval from the UCI to utilise the helmet as a 'prototype' and UCI gave said approval. Given it is a safety item the UCI was aware of design etc in the process, with the UCI noting no further changes can be made without another approval.

The sassy Giro post includes a screenshot/scan of the UCI approval.

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

The helmet may meet the expllicit rules, but it may not not meet the implicit rules.

When the UCI grants approval for something, shouldn't the UCI itself take into account both its explicit rules and any infringements of implicit rules?

Is there no way the body that writes the rules can think of any and all the possible permutations before granting approval to a commercial entity who take that approval and will go on to expend significant resources manufacturing and marketing the product?

The UCI have mentioned that they are going to have a look at the POC Tempor helmet. Why does it take them 12 years to address possible violations of implicit rules? Why has it taken almost two years of use for them to decide to ban the Spec head sock?

Amateur hour in Aigle, it is.

[charliedid]

I think the UCI should let companies make and provide pro riders whatever they want in the name of speed for bikes, equipment and apparel. These products should be F.R.O. and NOT available to the public in most cases. Teams themselves should share the time and financial burden.

I realize all this work/money with no retail channel to Fred and Wilma makes the investment less attractive and probably impossible but I'd be all for it. We as non-freak riders would still benefit from the R&D at a level more realistic to needs than desires. And let's face it the overwhelming majority of buyers have no interest in buying the fastest. That is pretty low on the list of needs and few desire it. I'm not advocating for stagnation in design and features for Joe Public mind you.

Most people have no interest in joining the circus they just want to watch it.

[GregL]

Snip:

Originally Posted by charliedid

Most people have no interest in joining the circus they just want to watch it.

Quote of the day. Thanks, I'm going to add this to my lexicon.

Greg

[KJMUNC]

well when you can't angle your levers in, you gotta get marginal gains somewhere....

[VC Slim]

Not sure if someone has asked or answered this but doesn’t the UCI require that approved equipment must be made available for retail sale? I looked on Giro.com and didn’t see the helmet listed.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by VC Slim

Not sure if someone has asked or answered this but doesn’t the UCI require that approved equipment must be made available for retail sale? I looked on Giro.com and didn’t see the helmet listed.

.

[VC Slim]

👆👍

[benb]

Originally Posted by jimoots

Giro put out a little bit of a sassy post today (view here) noting that they had the helmet approved by the UCI, and it meets the rules.

UCI have banned the Specialized head sock thingy and have now said they're reviewing helmets in general as a category. Typical UCI stuff.

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 find it pretty interesting pro racers seem much more willing to go along with things and just trust an aggressive manufacturer than other groups in similar risk situations like motorsports athletes.

I can't find any info on whether any of the long tail aero helmets are tested... the Virginia Tech site is pretty comprehensive and they don't seem to have tested any.

[EB]

Originally Posted by charliedid

I think the UCI should let companies make and provide pro riders whatever they want in the name of speed for bikes, equipment and apparel. These products should be F.R.O. and NOT available to the public in most cases. Teams themselves should share the time and financial burden.

I realize all this work/money with no retail channel to Fred and Wilma makes the investment less attractive and probably impossible but I'd be all for it. We as non-freak riders would still benefit from the R&D at a level more realistic to needs than desires. And let's face it the overwhelming majority of buyers have no interest in buying the fastest. That is pretty low on the list of needs and few desire it. I'm not advocating for stagnation in design and features for Joe Public mind you.

Most people have no interest in joining the circus they just want to watch it.

Historically the UCI’s argument for these rules has been the slippery slope fallacy - that if they allow open design, the end result for road racing will be the most aerodynamically optimal, which is likely a recumbent with farings enclosing the rider.

I think the rules originate from the first great era of TT bike experimentation, like the Lotus 110. They didn’t like that the bikes (and thus the riding positions, and ultimately the sport itself) might end up looking very much unlike they did in the distant past.