Home > Other Fun Stuff > Advocacy & Industry News

Is Dark Helmet Illegal? UCI Reevaluates Time Trial Helmet Design Rules!

Dark Helmet Giro Aerohead II sparks UCI aero TT time-trial helmet review at 2024 Tirreno Adriatico(Photo/Team Visma)
9 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Meme lords rejoiced with yesterday’s debut of the new Giro Aerohead II spaceship, I mean time trial helmet. But maybe the UCI wasn’t so impressed with Giro’s out-of-the-box thinking. Today the UCI announced plans for a new “in-depth analysis of the regulations governing the design and use of time trial helmets”. It seems the dramatically protruding proboscis on the front of Team Visma riders’ heads may have opened up a can of worms…

UCI rethinks the legality of aerodynamic TT helmet fairings

Specialized S-Works TT5 time-trial helmet with soon-to-be UCI-illegal aero neck sock for Bora-Hansgrohe at Tirreno-Adriatico
(Photo/Tirreno Adriatico)

First up apparently, the aerodynamic neck sock of Specialized’s S-Works TT 5 aero time-trial helmet is out. A UCI review defined it as “non-essential”.

Next on the chopping block may be the new Giro Aerohead II.

Rudy Project Windgream HL 85 aero TT helmet raced in gray camo for Bahrain-Victorious at Tirreno Adriatico 2024
(Photo/Bahrain Victorious)

Then, possibly Rudy Project’s next-generation Windgream HL 85, raced in gray camo by Bahrain Victorious.

The UCI also calls out the long-running POC Tempor. All these are said to potentially prioritize aerodynamics over the primary function of a helmet – to protect a cyclist’s head in a crash. No mention was given to similarly-aero TT helmets with windshields & fairings from Decathlon, Ekoi, Julbo, Kask, MET, Sweet Protection, Trek & more…

(gallery of photos all courtesy of Tirreno Adiratico via Twitter)

So anyway, the UCI is revisiting its regulations on aerodynamics time-trial helmets, with an aim of clarifying the rules and closing any loopholes.

Full wording of the UCI.org statement below:


05 MAR 2024

The UCI to carry out an in-depth analysis of the regulations governing the design and use of time trial helmets

The constant quest for improved performance and ever-increasing attention given to detail is leading professional teams and equipment manufacturers to develop their equipment more often and with ever more radical designs. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) today wishes to clarify its position concerning the category of helmet.

Firstly, the UCI recently informed Specialized of a review it had conducted on the head sock component of the American company’s TT5 helmet. This review was carried out to determine whether the helmet was in line with article 1.3.033 of the UCI Regulations, which prohibits the use of “non-essential” components that are not exclusively for clothing or safety purposes.

After conducting a thorough process, which included consultation with Specialized, as well as examination of documentation linked to the helmet’s certification, safety instructions, and information from public sources, it was concluded that the head sock is a “non-essential” component (article 1.3.033 of the UCI Regulations). As a result, the head sock integrated into the TT5 helmet will no longer be permitted for use at events on the UCI International Calendar, effective from 2 April, 2024.

Regarding the helmet manufactured by Giro Sport Design, which was used by Team Visma|Lease a Bike at the Tirreno-Adriatico prologue, as well as the Rudy Project Windgream HL 85 helmet (used by Bahrain Victorious) and Poc Tempor helmet (used by several teams), the UCI acknowledges that while this may not directly contravene existing UCI Regulations, it raises a significant issue concerning the current and wider trend in time trial helmet design, which focuses more on performance than the primary function of a helmet, namely to ensure the safety of the wearer in the event of a fall.

In view of the evolution of these situations as well as other problems encountered in recent years, in relation to the requirement for commercial availability, the ban on non-essential components and the shape and size of time trial helmets, the UCI will undertake a review of its rules on the design and use of helmets in competition. By doing so, it wishes to ensure that they set a clear framework that is consistent with the objectives targeted. Any modification to these rules will be communicated rapidly after its adoption by the competent UCI bodies.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Raoulign
Raoulign
1 month ago

The POC Tempor has been around since 2012 so the UCI decides to act now…
What’s different today than it was 12 years ago?

Paul
Paul
1 month ago
Reply to  Raoulign

Distance away from the front of the head is something that wasn’t specified in the UCI rules. Giro is the first to take advantage of that “loop hole” or lack of constraint to make the shape of the helmet a pointed nose cone – and not… well head-shaped. The Poc is weird looking but fell flush within all the current dimension guidlines. This one just shows that there is a lack of specificity with the overall length specs of 300mm. They probably didn’t consider this route, and it just shows they need to reevaluate how they’re written.

Evan
Evan
1 month ago

The UCI writes rules, a helmet is designed within the rules, the UCI approves the helmet, the helmet sees the light of day, then the UCI sees some embarrassing memes and suddenly the rules need to change?

This would have all blown over in a week. No need to get your panties in a ruffle..

Raphaël
Raphaël
1 month ago

The “Trek” helmet on the pic is actually the same Met used by UAE. Trek / Bontrager don’t make a TT helmet. Riders and team use what the like / want.

blue
blue
1 month ago

Translated from UCIsh to English: We don’t know yet how, but we are definitely going to ban this, just because we can…

syborg
syborg
1 month ago

Helmets, with rear fairings, serve no useful purpose other than aero. These helmets are inherently less safe and can break a neck of a rider rolls on the ground in a fall.

whatever
whatever
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

based on what data?

Jon Einar Visser
Jon Einar Visser
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

As an example: Full face motorcycle hemets might be more safe than bike helmets and are probably more aero because they cover the whole head.

This is an example of how stupid the UCI is. Yeah, if it is more aero, then it is not automatically less safe.

All helmets need to pass safety tests, also the giro aerohead II. So in that regards, it is not less safe than a traditional road helmet. In fact, it is probably quite safe!

Let virginia tech decide how safe the helmet is, then re-evaluate the rules if it is actually unsafe.

Jon Einar Visser
Jon Einar Visser
1 month ago

TT5 head sock:

The head sock is an integral part of the S-Works TT 5 helmet; it helps maintain an optimal position on the head while riding and mitigate rotational forces during impact.

This, what specialized sais implies that it makes the hemet safer.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.