“It’s laughable” - Remco Evenepoel calls into question the UCI’s head sock ban on the Specialized TT5 time trial helmet
Cycling
In a week where we have seen two new distinctive designs from Giro and Rudy Project, the UCI have now taken action against another controversial time trial helmet, as they have banned the head sock on Specialized’s TT5 helmet.
In response to the ban, Specialized’s Leader of Helmets Alex Jerome told GCN in a statement that “Specialized is disappointed in this decision as it greatly impacts our riders and teams that have spent a significant amount of time preparing with the equipment that was UCI approved”.
First introduced at the opening time trial of the 2022 Tour de France in Copenhagen, the Specialized TT5 took the world of cycling by surprise and was widely ridiculed due to its unique design and accompanying head sock.
At last year’s World Championships in Glasgow, Remco Evenepoel wore the helmet as he rode to victory in the individual time trial and claimed the title of World Champion. “It’s laughable,” said the Soudal - Quick-Step rider when asked about the ban in an interview with Sporza, “two years ago, they authorised our helmet, and now they’re taking it out. I kind of feel like they want to play with our balls”.
The UCI claim that the head sock is a “non-essential” component and that it is in breach of article 1.3.033 of the regulations. However, it does call into question why the helmet is being banned now when it was approved in 2022.
The UCI have also announced that they will be reviewing the new Giro Aerohead II and the Rudy Project Windgream HL 85 helmets, as well as the POC Tempor helmet, which has been around for many years now and is another helmet with a radical design.
A statement by the world governing body said “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”.
Read also
claps 1visitors 1
Just in
Popular news
Latest comments
- Yeah, unreal.
parisbound0008-11-2026 - there needs to be space in life for pointless comments!Ketterechts08-11-2026
- That is a very lazy way of putting it but so far on this website it seems like everyone is happy to look at everything lazily, even things that annoy them intensely. All they want to do is state their feeling and position but ask most to analyse a problem or come up with solutions or improvements and you’re stunned by silence. Nobody even really knows how this all happens. It’s very simple and quick to just say the UCI did it but I bet you they didn’t, I bet you not more than 2 people were involved, more likely just 1. The UCI may be ultimately responsible but it is not their decision, this is about hierarchy, power and delegation. The fact that protest is possible also means it isn’t over and that MORE people could get involved for a thorough review which could throw up anything. It is highly likely it was a sole commissar who decided and has that power in a first round. Therein might lie the problem the UCI has to consider, is it acceptable to give so much authority to one single person when it is quite possible for them to have a natural bias or be too easily susceptible to imposed bias. Who is to say an individual in this position isn’t susceptible to collaboration with outside players with interests in the results, nations, families, teams, betting companies, etc. On the one hand we have sports where these problems have been worked on way more to reduce such problems, on the other hand we have sports with far stricter and more draconian rules not even concerning safety or obstruction that nobody really questions like false starts or stepping out of lane or zones in athletics. If cycling hastowork on itself, it would be good if protagonists (all kinds) would start doing a little more than just moaning over outcomes.Jumpyjohn08-11-2026
- Yes, so why not make comments less pointless?Jumpyjohn08-11-2026
- What a race! I didn't expect Vanthourenhout to collapse like that, and Wyseure did take the fight to Nys, but there was no doubt at the end. I also wonder what Aubin Sparfel would be capable of were he to race in the elites now. In the U23 ranks he is making good work of Giel Lejeune, who himself is among the better riders in the elites, and a top 10 contender in the big races (3rd at Kleebergcross, 8th at Berencross and 5th at Heerderstrand). In the French Cup, Sparfel is significantly better than Romain Debord (8th at Koppenbergcross and 10th at the Euros) and Rémi Lelandais (12th at Koppenbergcross and 19th at the Euros).
Rafionain-Glas08-11-2026 - There really was nothing in it. Schreiber was so much faster, and Brand was fighting to stay in the wheel in the sprint. Schreiber did move a bit, but to say she closed the door doesn't make sense because Brand couldn't enter it anyway, abd she wasn't impeded.Rafionain-Glas08-11-2026
- He should have been allowed to go to Movistar. Right now both arent a good fit for each other and are just wasting each other's time and effortabstractengineer08-11-2026
- Thibau Nys does exactly what Iserbyt is calling forRafionain-Glas08-11-2026
- i did not see it. was the relegation justified or an overly hard decision? and don‘t cross riders deviate from straight lines all the time? bumping into each others when they cut corners, etc … why being more strict with the rules on the finish sprint?Ketterechts08-11-2026
- seems like we are advertising the website with pointless comments…Ketterechts08-11-2026
Loading
Proud of our guys 🙌 Photo: @GettySport
Write a comment