As if road rash is the big problem in cycling crashes. Missing skin hurts, but road rash heals quickly and usually doesn't impair riders' training much. This looks like a race organizer trying to shift focus away from designing safe courses that minimize crash risks to the outcome of crashes.
As an earlier commenter pointed out, summer racing suits are often designed for breathability to prevent overheating. Is it better for riders to overheat, impairing their bodies and thinking abilities (possibly causing crashes), for slightly better road rash outcomes? Probably not.
The greatest risks in crashes are concussions or broken bones. While improvements in helmets have slowly improved concussion outcomes, the emphasis recently has seemingly been on their aerodynamics. If they cared, the UCI might consider changing rules around helmet design, perhaps finding whatever the most protective helmet there is today and saying no future helmet to be used in races next year can be less protective. This would force helmet companies to continue making safer helmets.
Reducing broken bone chances would be much harder.
Maybe we could see airbag vests like in motorcycle racing someday integrated into cycling suits, but that would only help with core injuries like ribs and spine. Again, making that breathable would be very difficult. Riders will only accept a performance disadvantage if required for all competitors.
It's simpler to design safe courses than pour millions into R&D for new safety equipment and subsequently create rules requiring its use. But many race organizers continue to forgo the effort of making safer courses, instead shifting blame for rider injuries elsewhere.
Mostly agree but strangely enough, the whole time we’ve been mentioning rendering courses safer, most commentators seem to criticise it in the name of costs, logistics, effort or I don’t know what difficulty they see. It’s almost as if they want to continue to see crashes because the races are otherwise too boring for the “modern” MTV minds that can’t multitask viewing with reflection.
There is a solution to impact and abrasion protection - www.armaurto.com - we have been protecting the peloton for years at UCI level. This year UK based UCI team Saint Piran have invested in protecting their riders against injury when the inevitable crash or fall happens. Check the tech out, the lightest, thinnest, accredited impact protection in the world, 4mm tapering to 1mm at the edge. Breathable and fully washable. Look out for the largest manufacturer in Italy launching a range that incorporates ARMA into their WT teams. For now, www.armaurto.com
Let's go back to WOOL cycling jerseys! We had light weight wool jerseys for summer and heavy weight for winter. Cotton could get a little clammy when wet. Silk was really nice yet more expensive and mainly for track riders.
Wool, silk and cotton do not disintegrate while crashing like the new materials. Back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s they were the go to fabrics for cyclists. Ahhh, the good old days.
And maybe add some sewn in kevlar padding in the most fragile places where there is not too much movement limitation
This had to be the dumbest drama, ever. Imagine bickering over shorts🤦🏻
What's not mentioned or written is clothing is also designed to keep the rider cool or warm.
From my experience, my summer clothing to keep me cool is much thinner with a different weave and material. Whereas my winter clothing is heaver, a tighter weave and less aero.
Once again the UCI, doesn't comprehend the real issue when trying to discuss a problem. It's the old joke, " I'm from HQ and I'm here to help".
Lost in translation?
What was rhetorical about the sentence mistakenly called a question?
In French, a question is framed by the cadence of the sentence. Instead of 'is it', he'd still say 'it is'. As English is his second language then he's likely done a literal structural translation of what he'd say in French. Probably, I dunno I'm not a linguist!
It has less to do with what he said than with the way the writer described his way of saying it. The writers’ language skills might have more importance here.
As for the French speaking English (even well) what is this mania to add H everywhere it isn’t and take it away when it is?
I ear with my hear?