I hope they do! It’s such a horrible look for cycling.
1 Like
Banning it is a horrible look. The uci has to approve new designs so they should have resolved this before the team and sponsors wasted time and money. It’s hardly the fault of Jumbo and Giro that the regulations allow for this.
It seems like it could be a safety risk. I am imagine falling face first with that “fairing” could twist the neck in an unnatural position or hyperextend though i suppose all helmets have the potential to do that.
Obviously more aero than safety at this point.
3 Likes
You’re probably a mamil if you are reading this, dressing up like your favorite pro complete with super expensive white shoes. Why wouldn’t you wear it?.
Joe
Full disclosure……I’d wear it, 100%
1 Like
It’s sick! More innovation, please!
Banning it makes the sport look bad, because there are rules for helmets and this helmet follows them. Same as for it passes all safety checks and crash tests, otherwise they would not have been allowed to wear it in a race.
With this attitude of the UCI every company is discouraged to push the limits within the regulations, as the UCI has shown again that if they dont like something, they change the rules after you spent all your money and reason it with “safety”.
Hey…if the POC Tempor is not safe, how come the UCI did risk allowing it for over 10years?
4 Likes
Loaded question.
2 Likes
Ssssh, let them piss around at the margins with aerodynamics rather than doing it properly.
1 Like
Besides all the more or less hilarious memes, it actually makes a ton of sense an looks fast AF.
It leads the airflow pretty well from the hands, fills in a lot of the void between hands and face, and makes the transition around the shoulders and over the back pretty seamlessly.
Also, the huge visor is exactly what I’d want to have a great vision.
In a low position it also looks quite decent imo.
I‘d definitely test this, if I got the chance.
5 Likes
Let’s think this through. If the UCI ban it, then take the next step and say “road helmets only during TT’s”, then the next step will be an evolution of super-aero road helmets, which we can all run out and drop $300-400 dollars on. Win-win!! I’m saving up already for my next purchase…
1 Like
Does it? The rules explicitly state you can’t use anything as a fairing. I’d argue this helmet design (and others) has a primary purpose of being a fairing.
This argument has been made for decades, but innovation and new designs continue to occur. Whether it is at the same pace as what would be possible w/o the regulations is a different question, however.
Yup…the inconsistency of the UCI never fails to disappoint.
2 Likes
It’s possible that it has passed all EXISTING safety tests but still be unsafe. As I’ve seen pointed out here and elsewhere, the extra long forehead may create extra danger by twisting the head/neck more in the event of some types of crash. I doubt that tests have been established, or at least regularly done, to find out what happens if you add half a foot to your forehead.
1 Like
Do they actually approve or are companies self certifying with the guidelines of the rules in mind? Only later to find out that UC I doesn’t accept it.
The latter is common in many industries. People just recently learned Boeing self certifies. Car companies self certify nearly everything and governments just chose what they want to check up on both crash testing and emissions, this is how you get weird recalls where a car company has to turn on more leds in a brake light sooner sort of thing. Many aftermarket car parts say DOT approved on them and the DOT has never approved anything
In every form of racing you have people pushing the limits of the rules until the sanctioning body steps in because something is unsafe, other teams complain, or it is actually a violation even if that violation is just the spirit of the rule.
1 Like
Personally I’m a big fan of sci-fi-looking TT stuff. I don’t think there’s a huge leap from the standard pointy-backed helmets that have been around for decades and this. For sure giro should demonstrate that it won’t break your neck in a crash (if they can) but if it’s found to be safe then I say let’s lean into how dorky TT looks
1 Like
You have to keep in mind that the UCI sees one of its key roles as preserving the spirit and aesthetic of cycling. This is obviously a very nebulous concept that continuously butts heads with innovation. Manufacturers push boundaries until stuff gets “too weird” (very subjective obvs.) and then UCI pulls out the ban hammer.
The fastest TT setup would be a fully fared recumbent. UCI mandates triple-triangle frames, which I think we all agree is good. Likewise body fairings, super fast but banned. Again, a good thing in my view.
Knee-high aero socks? Textured skinsuits with flying-squirrel flaps under the arms? TT positions that preclude bike control or visibility? All fast, all debatably non-aesthetic or agains the spirit of cycling.
As a Supreme Court justice once said about the line between pornography and art, “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.” For good or ill the UCI takes this approach to the spirit and aesthetic of cycling. While their enforcement is capricious and rules often inconsistent, I think overall this is a good thing for those of us who want to continue riding things that look like bikes wearing gear that looks like normal gear.
5 Likes
Yeah, I was gonna post something similar earlier…there is a level of subjectivity to this. Nothing will ever be 100% cut & dried.
I can reasonably argue that a Specialized Evade helmet’s primary function is protection while the new Giro Aerohead 2 helmet’s primary function is as a fairing. there is a sliding scale there that will be influenced by one’s opinions.
This is an important point, IMO…others have noted that the helmet must have passed certification tests for safety, etc. While true, those tests are only for impact forces. There is no certified and required test for rotational forces.
So it is very possible that the helmet tests as “safe” based on required testing but not based on potential real world outcomes.
3 Likes
Is the distance of the Aerohead 2 from the face forwards considerably longer than that of a motocross helmet? Those come to mind with their pointy lower end and could be a good example.
Edit: The same badmouthing has been done with disc breaks slicing people open. People just guess stuff and present it like a fact.
2 Likes
That’s a good point, but is there data on the probability of cervical injuries in different crash scenarios with existing helmet designs? Ideally you’d want to estimate both any marginal changes in that probability, as well as any changes in the probability of specific crash types (for example, if a given helmet design slightly increases the probability of a c-spine injury but decreases the probability of a crash because of improved visibility, the net injury risk would be lower).
I honestly have no idea…I would assume VA Tech has some good data based on their enhanced testing protocols, but how that translates into actual injuries (or injury prevention) is really unknown.
Unfortunately, since the VA Tech testing is not a required testing protocol, it doesn’t really factor into getting new helmets into use for racing via the UCI rule book.
1 Like
Yep, exactly this. Seems to pretty clearly not be purely for protection and it appears to be an aerodynamic fairing.
To my lay person understanding of the rules, it’s clear that this new helmet shouldn’t be permitted. The question is why are so many existing TT helmets permitted that arguably are also fairings and not primarily about protection?
Hopefully this new UCI project will clear that up (whilst not expecting it to be definitive, much like rugby’s laws which allow for interpretation and that’s ok)