{"id":61128,"date":"2024-03-19T14:12:17","date_gmt":"2024-03-19T13:12:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/603bdf29-bdf1-42f9-8911-b943b71d881f"},"modified":"2024-03-19T15:59:43","modified_gmt":"2024-03-19T14:59:43","slug":"simon-says-the-uci-must-stop-banning-things-just-because-they-look-weird","status":"publish","type":"rss_feed","link":"https:\/\/c01.purpledshub.com\/cyclingplus\/rss_feed\/simon-says-the-uci-must-stop-banning-things-just-because-they-look-weird\/","title":{"rendered":"Simon says: The UCI must stop banning things just because they look weird"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cycling needs clear and stable rules if the sport is to develop <\/p>

By Simon von Bromley\n <\/p>

Published: Tuesday, 19 March 2024 at 13:12 PM<\/p>

\n\n

A couple of weeks ago, the UCI announced it would be undertaking an \u201cin-depth analysis\u201d on the \u201ccurrent and wider trend in time-trial helmet design, which focuses more on performance than the primary function of a helmet\u201d.<\/p>

Released the day after the striking Giro Aerohead II<\/a> debuted at Tirreno Adriatico, the UCI\u2019s statement specifically referenced that helmet, along with several others, and included a note that the \u2018headsock\u2019 component of Specialized\u2019s TT5 helmet<\/a> would be banned from 2 April 2024.<\/p>

Staggeringly, all the helmets mentioned in the statement received official approval from the UCI prior to their use in the WorldTour<\/a>.<\/p>

Any item of prototype equipment must, per the UCI\u2019s technical and equipment regulations<\/a>, have prior approval before being used in a sanctioned event \u2013 and there\u2019s no evidence to suggest any team or brand didn\u2019t follow this protocol.<\/p>

It\u2019s reasonable to assume the UCI knew exactly what was coming and confirmed all of the helmets adhered to its current rules.<\/p>

So why, then, did the UCI feel compelled to make a statement saying these helmets raised \u201ca significant issue\u201d?<\/p>

Because, it seems, it doesn\u2019t like the way they look.<\/p>

This sad yet predictable about-face is the latest in a long line of interventions from the UCI, which stifle innovation and dent the sport\u2019s commercial viability.<\/p>

According to a report by\u00a0 Sporza<\/a>\u00a0today, the UCI may be about to row back on its concerns surrounding Giro\u2019s Aerohead II. While that may be a win for Giro, this in itself could be damaging \u2013 the UCI’s proclivity for reactive governance and the uncertainty that creates for the sport remains the real issue.<\/p>

Patchwork regulations<\/h2>
Were long socks banned for sporting fairness or safety reasons, or simply because the UCI didn’t like the way they looked? – UCI<\/figcaption><\/figure>
To look at the infamous Clarification Guide of the UCI Technical Regulation<\/a>, is to see a patchwork of regulations \u2013 often applied in response to a manufacturer, team or rider trying something new.<\/p>
At the beginning, this document states \u201cThe UCI Regulations assert the primacy of man over machine. Observance of the regulations by all parties involved facilitates sporting fairness and safety during competition\u201d.<\/p>
This is a laudable statement, but what the UCI often seems most concerned with is the way things look.<\/p>
There was and has been no statement from the UCI about the risks of head-down riding, and\/or how its regulations surrounding rider positions on time trial bikes<\/a> may promote this style of riding, since Stefan K\u00fcng\u2019s crash at the 2023 European Time Trial Championships<\/a>, for example.<\/p>
Perhaps it\u2019s working on something behind the scenes, but the difference between the UCI\u2019s lack of response to that crash and its cause, and its very public reactions to the unveiling of Giro\u2019s Aerohead II helmet or to the creeping rise of sock heights<\/a>, is stark.<\/p>
$\"Cian$
The Giro Aerohead II is an innovative helmet, but it still represents an evolution of existing designs \u2013 Giro hasn’t torn up the rule book. – Tim de Waele\/Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>
Likewise, the argument this upcoming analysis will serve to protect \u201cthe primacy of man over machine\u201d doesn\u2019t hold water either.<\/p>
Giro\u2019s Aerohead II is not vastly different from existing time trial helmets, which the UCI accepted without comment.<\/p>
The major innovation on Giro\u2019s helmet is that the body extends forward of the rider\u2019s forehead, rather than just backwards.<\/p>
In what sense is the Aerohead II\u2019s shape or Specialized\u2019s head sock any more \u201cnon-essential\u201d than the long tails of \u2018traditional\u2019 time trial helmets, such as Kask\u2019s Bambino Pro Evo<\/a>, Bell\u2019s Javelin<\/a> or even Giro\u2019s original Aerohead<\/a>?<\/p>
$\"Kask$
Why does the UCI think this aerodynamically optimised shape is okay, but not other ones? – Simon Bromley \/ Immediate Media<\/figcaption><\/figure>
The UCI can say the Giro Aerohead II, Specialized TT5 and POC Tempor<\/a> (which has been around since 2012<\/a>) are \u201cradical designs\u201d, but all fall within the current regulations.<\/p>
This is because while there are maximum permitted dimensions for helmets, there are no rules regarding shape.<\/p>
The rules even state helmets \u201calready manufactured\u201d or \u201calready at the production stage\u201d and \u201con the market\u201d before 1 January 2023 don\u2019t need to comply with its dimensional rules \u2013 meaning there\u2019s one rule for old helmets and another for new ones.<\/p>
This doesn\u2019t make any sense. If there are good reasons (in terms of safety or sporting fairness) to limit the size of helmets, then any helmets that fall outside of the predetermined limits should be banned in competition.<\/p>
If there aren\u2019t, then why is the rule in place? It\u2019s a mess.<\/p>
$\"POC$
The POC Tempor has been around since 2012, so calling it a “radical design” doesn’t hold much water. – Simon Bromley \/ Immediate Media<\/figcaption><\/figure>
Let\u2019s not forget, the main point of a bike race is (generally) to find out who\u2019s the fastest from A to B.<\/p>
Unlike sports such as artistic gymnastics, snowboarding or surfing (to name three), there are no points or prizes for style or \u2018difficulty\u2019.<\/p>
The job of any governing body is to administer fair competition and develop the sport. This, of course, includes the regulation of equipment and technology, and I\u2019m not calling for a regulatory free-for-all in any sense.<\/p>
Rather than agreeing a set of regulations in collaboration with key stakeholders, though, the UCI simply appears to react to the churn of new developments, without a clear or consistent strategy.<\/p>
Reality check: maybe cycling isn\u2019t as cool as many think<\/h2>
$\"Simon$
Cycling is a lot of fun, but Lycra skinsuits, pointy helmets and unusual-looking bikes are hardly the epitome of ‘cool’. – Andrew Legge<\/figcaption><\/figure>
I know what many are thinking: ‘But these new helmets do look ridiculous \u2013 they\u2019re ruining our beautiful sport!’<\/p>
The first part may be true. However, too many people have an inflated opinion of how \u2018cool\u2019 cycling is.<\/p>
I\u2019m no arbiter of style, but let\u2019s face it; Lycra skinsuits, cycling shoes with cleats, pointy helmets and bikes with funky handlebars<\/a> have never been cool or good-looking.<\/p>
Brands such as Rapha<\/a> do a good job of convincing us otherwise, with carefully curated marketing and \u2018storytelling\u2019. But when we awkwardly clip-clop into a cafe for a post-ride coffee, the other patrons typically aren\u2019t looking over in admiration.<\/p>
If we want to know what the general public thinks of cycling and bike racing, the 2017 mockumentary film, Tour de Pharmacy<\/em>, is probably a good barometer.<\/p>
Likewise, the in-cycling comparison of modern time trial helmets to Spaceballs<\/em> (a 1987 parody of Star Wars<\/em>) was funny the first time that joke was made, but it\u2019s boring now we\u2019ve all seen it a hundred times.<\/p>
Can\u2019t we just accept the days of professional bike riders looking like Fausto Coppi are behind us? Fans of Formula 1 don\u2019t complain cars from the modern era don\u2019t look the same as those from Juan Manuel Fangio\u2019s (1950s) era, after all.<\/p>
Of course, events such as L\u2019Eroica<\/a> and the Goodwood Revival exist to serve fans of bygone eras, but few would argue the equipment used in these events is what the modern professional equivalents should look to emulate.<\/p>
$\"Eroica$
Classic bikes have their charm, but modern racing has moved on. – BikeRadar\/Immediate Media<\/figcaption><\/figure>
It\u2019s also worth remembering the vast majority of cyclists are not sponsored professionals and are free to ride or wear whatever they want.<\/p>
If you think the Giro Aerohead II or anything else looks dorky, that\u2019s absolutely fine \u2013 no one will force you to buy or wear it.<\/p>
Calling for things to be banned simply because they look different is no way to manage a professional sport.<\/p>
Poor regulation damages the sport and benefits the wealthy<\/h2>
Opinions on aesthetics aside, this reactive approach to regulation actively harms the sport.<\/p>
Giro, Specialized and any other brands falling foul of the UCI\u2019s latest intervention will have invested lots of resources into making these helmets.<\/p>
How can any brand be expected to develop equipment for use in UCI-sanctioned events, or sponsor any professional team, if the UCI can\u2019t be trusted to keep regulations stable for a reasonable period, instead choosing to ban things it doesn\u2019t like the look of on the hoof?<\/p>
Echoing this sentiment in a post on Instagram, Giro aimed thinly veiled criticism at the UCI, saying: \u201cWe design for sport. Sport has rules. We play by the rules\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>

<\/div><\/div>

View this post on Instagram<\/div><\/div>

<\/div>

<\/div>

<\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/a>
A post shared by Giro Cycling (@girocycling)<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/blockquote>