• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

TT equipment: How radical should be permissible?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
red_flanders

red_flanders

Apr 3, 2009
11,654
6,437
28,180
ManicJack said:
Kind of crazy, but not surprising, that the UCI is just getting around to this now.
Click to expand...
Strikes me as about the right time. To me they're saying...

It's getting out of hand, but it's not an emergency, and we're gonna. step in now. The Specialized isn't the worst offender but we can ban it with current regulations. We're working on regulations to ban the others, they'll have to do with size and proportion. It'll take a bit to work it out and test any solutions. Meanwhile, we're warning manufacturers to stop it, any new helmets in development are now under a big question mark, that'll be a fair bit to deal with right there. Then we'll roll out the new regs. Probably next year.

I'm good with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan, awavey, Brullnux and 1 other person
ManicJack

ManicJack

BANNED
Apr 4, 2023
1,253
1,632
5,680
red_flanders said:
Strikes me as about the right time. To me they're saying...

It's getting out of hand, but it's not an emergency, and we're gonna. step in now. The Specialized isn't the worst offender but we can ban it with current regulations. We're working on regulations to ban the others, they'll have to do with size and proportion. It'll take a bit to work it out and test any solutions. Meanwhile, we're warning manufacturers to stop it, any new helmets in development are now under a big question mark, that'll be a fair bit to deal with right there. Then we'll roll out the new regs. Probably next year.

I'm good with it.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your analysis of the situation at hand but shouldn't 2024's rules in regards to equipment etc. be known in Oct 2023? Seems even more "fly by night" than I thought the UCI was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IndianCyclist
G

Gargamel35

Sep 5, 2020
959
1,824
7,180
red_flanders said:
Strikes me as about the right time. To me they're saying...

It's getting out of hand, but it's not an emergency, and we're gonna. step in now. The Specialized isn't the worst offender but we can ban it with current regulations. We're working on regulations to ban the others, they'll have to do with size and proportion. It'll take a bit to work it out and test any solutions. Meanwhile, we're warning manufacturers to stop it, any new helmets in development are now under a big question mark, that'll be a fair bit to deal with right there. Then we'll roll out the new regs. Probably next year.

I'm good with it.
Click to expand...
How long was the sock in use? Whole last season and maybe more? So it's crazy to ban it now after such a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
G

Gargamel35

Sep 5, 2020
959
1,824
7,180
Salvarani said:
Just because they have been using it, doesnt mean they should continue with it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's take the bikes too. UCI is a joke. Write down hard guidelines for equipment so teams can follow them while designing upgrades. When new equipment is developed, check it and allow or ban it. You can't allow equipment for 2 years, but then, when a different team comes out with crazy helmet design and now let's first ban some sock after new season already started just for kicks and warn the crazy helmet guys.

What is that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: proffate and Berniece
S

Salvarani

Oct 15, 2017
14,589
15,368
28,180
Gargamel35 said:
Yeah, let's take the bikes too. UCI is a joke. Write down hard guidelines for equipment so teams can follow them while designing upgrades. When new equipment is developed, check it and allow or ban it. You can't allow equipment for 2 years, but then, when a different team comes out with crazy helmet design and now let's first ban some sock after new season already started just for kicks and warn the crazy helmet guys.

What is that?
Click to expand...
Just how the world works.
 
Netserk

Netserk

Apr 30, 2011
42,687
24,415
28,180
Gargamel35 said:
Yeah, let's take the bikes too. UCI is a joke. Write down hard guidelines for equipment so teams can follow them while designing upgrades. When new equipment is developed, check it and allow or ban it. You can't allow equipment for 2 years, but then, when a different team comes out with crazy helmet design and now let's first ban some sock after new season already started just for kicks and warn the crazy helmet guys.

What is that?
Click to expand...
The head-sock ban was independent of the new helmets. A review of that specific item had been under way. I agree that it shouldn't have been approved in the first place, but the rule in question (ban on non-essential components) is a judgement call. It's a good rule, but it is hard to apply and needs consideration. Had Specialized introduced it in the beginning of the year, I hope they would have taken their time to review it before approving it, but on the eve of the Tour I think they may have allowed it without any careful review. It could also be down to a change to how the rules in question are applied more generally; such changes will happen from time to time.

The other rule regarding helmets, with a limit on their dimensions, is a relatively new rule that is such a hard guideline that you are asking for. So the new helmets are within the allowed dimensions, and thus approved.

They just didn't foresee how much that regulation allowed of different shapes, and will now review the rule in question. I hope they will take their take, and wait with a new rule-set until after the season is over. Then manufacturers have the winter to adjust.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
G

Gargamel35

Sep 5, 2020
959
1,824
7,180
Netserk said:
The head-sock ban was independent of the new helmets. A review of that specific item had been under way. I agree that it shouldn't have been approved in the first place, but the rule in question (ban on non-essential components) is a judgement call. It's a good rule, but it is hard to apply and needs consideration. Had Specialized introduced it in the beginning of the year, I hope they would have taken their time to review it before approving it, but on the eve of the Tour I think they may have allowed it without any careful review.

The other rule regarding helmets, with a limit on their dimensions, is a relatively new rule that is such a hard guideline that you are asking for. So the new helmets are within the allowed dimensions, and thus approved.

They just didn't foresee how much that regulation allowed, and will now review the rule in question. I hope they will take their take, and wait with a new rule-set until after the season is over. Then manufacturers have the winter to adjust.
Click to expand...
All fine. But sock is in use for two years already. You surely don't need two years to decide if you will allow it or ban it. Or is this one any different to the one in use for the last two years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: proffate and Berniece
G

Gargamel35

Sep 5, 2020
959
1,824
7,180
Berniece said:
I like it that we push further in TT to go very aerodynamic within some constraints. I also never saw the issue with Sky having some sort of camelback, but that's just me. Otherwise the line is weird to be drawn, then also remove the handlebars, and only use racing bikes.
Click to expand...
Very true (i can't believe we actually agree on something). I like TT for this exact reason. New innovative equipment, teams trying all sorts of things. Look at all the fun with Visma helmets. TT looks like alien show in search of being the fastest possible. Like F1. I like that.

But i would put some cap on possible developments for teams to even out the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan, joseph89 and Berniece
Logic-is-your-friend

Logic-is-your-friend

Jun 7, 2011
19,926
18,469
28,180
scribers said:
What’s happening with the visma helmets? Personally it is like a boardman bike matter and some historical tradition should be maintained
Click to expand...
I personally don't care, but it's ridiculous that they just made new rules one or two seasons ago, they allowed the sock 2 years ago, they greenlighted the Visma phallus less than half a year ago.

I think the headsock issue could be resolved fairly easily by attaching the sock to the actual helmet. So that it comes in one piece. They then can't fall back on saying that it is an unnecessary add-on as it would be an integral part of the helmet, and it would mean they would have to trim all parts of all helmets that are not solely for safety. But the Visma thing (should they change the rules for it to be illegal) is a different matter. I 'd like to know if it wouldn't be possible for Giro to sue UCI, considering they already gave their go-ahead, and changing the rules after the facts would result in massive financial losses, after production had started and R&D couldn't have been cheap.

Maybe they should just ban aero helmets and TT bikes all together. That way no possible future innovation could possibly slip through the cracks, forcing them to change the rules again and look stupid once more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
U

Unchained

Sep 5, 2016
3,538
5,686
19,180
Logic-is-your-friend said:
I personally don't care, but it's ridiculous that they just made new rules one or two seasons ago, they allowed the sock 2 years ago, they greenlighted the Visma phallus less than half a year ago.

I think the headsock issue could be resolved fairly easily by attaching the sock to the actual helmet. So that it comes in one piece. They then can't fall back on saying that it is an unnecessary add-on as it would be an integral part of the helmet, and it would mean they would have to trim all parts of all helmets that are not solely for safety. But the Visma thing (should they change the rules for it to be illegal) is a different matter. I 'd like to know if it wouldn't be possible for Giro to sue UCI, considering they already gave their go-ahead, and changing the rules after the facts would result in massive financial losses, after production had started and R&D couldn't have been cheap.

Maybe they should just ban aero helmets and TT bikes all together. That way no possible future innovation could possibly slip through the cracks, forcing them to change the rules again and look stupid once more.
Click to expand...
When the eras have transitioned, no helmet, hat,almost all hats, hairnets, or nothing and then plastic \ polystyrene helmets, and now exotic aerodynamic shapes, wearing something on your head, like a cycling cap under the poly- plastic helmet should be an issue, so should wearing a lycra head sock attached or unattached.
Helmet manufacturers have to have a bunch of boilerplate about what constitutes proper, safe use of their products.
Strange that the money involved like Giro,Bell,etc that the helmets were not pre approved..
UCI has allowed misuse of helmets since they mandated use of helmets. And I suspect that the early aero helmets that looked like close fitting fiberglass hair, were not tested either.
Here's another example of a plastic paralyzing device, this is not even close to the most dangerous thing they have allowed as headgear
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3VVVHk5_xM&pp=ygUiYWVybyBiaWN5Y2xlIGhlbG1ldCBjaHJpcyBib2FyZG1hbg%3D%3D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miss Violet Smith and proffate
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom