UCI makes last minute call to ban INEOS Grenadiers' helmet during UAE Tour

Sorry, overlooked that detail. Hope this info compensates ;-) This was done in line with regulation 1.3.033, which prohibits “non-essential” components. The full rule reads: “Items of clothing may not modify the morphology of the rider and any non-essential element or device, of which the purpose is not exclusively that of clothing or protection, is forbidden.” The UCI also announced in March last year that it would undertake a review of its rules around helmet design, in light of a “significant issue” whereby manufacturers were focusing “more on performance than the primary function of a helmet”. No update has been released.

In order for the equipment to be used in competition, the UCI has to approve it. They approved the visor with the addition faring a while ago. I think I recall Adam Yates using it in the 2023 Giro... I could be mistaken on that. Manufacturers and teams make sure they have UCI approval before full production, making any adjustments needed for full compliance as a part of the process. The issue I have with the UCI on this is another instance of incredibly poor timing, and a lack of a clear standard applied to all teams and kit. So any of the helmets we see have been UCI approved. I find it crazy that the Kask visors and spesh "sock" have had their approvals redacted, but the Giro helmet used by Visma is still in compliance even though it clearly modifies the morphology of the rider with a primary focus on performance, not safety. UCI has had a whole off-season to review in-use equipment and update their approval list. Less than a day before a major stage race is wild.

Very true, problem is, they changed the design in 2024 meaning it had to get new approval. It was not a change in decision and based on the rules it seems totally justified. It’s like driving too fast, if you know the rule and transgress you can’t complain afterwards. You can lobby to change the rules though but the whole reason these rules exist is to keep cycling more or less cycling as we know it. Take away rules on non-essentials and how do you avoid fairings, how do you avoid turni g bikes into HPVs, far faster for sure (the hour record is over 90km/h) but completely impractical for racing.

Mistermaumau....the Donald Trump of cycling. Disinformation again and again. (the hour record is over 90km/h) 😂😂😂 Get your facts correct before you post.

the updated visor was used at each grand tour last year without issue, meaning it was UCI approved. That they arbitrarily backtracked on that right before a major stage race isn't really debatable. Maybe the arbitrary part it, but the timing is, at best, in incredibly poor taste. Good thing Tarling still won.

don't forget know it all

What came first, the use or the approval?

You obviously don’t know what an HPV is, don’t want to learn anything you don’t already know and therefore don’t understand the comment. Too bad

26 June 2016 Francesco Russo Dekra Lausitzring, 5.8 km oval, Germany 92.432 streamlined enclosed recumbent, rider faces backward

approval... even prototype equipment needs approval prior to usage in a sanctioned race.

HPVs would be harder to race, no doubt, but not impossible. Looking at modern bikes, kit, logistics of repair, feeding, and hydrating cyclists, the addition of HPVs into a hypothetical race would be small in comparison.

I’m not advocating mixing, hpv races would have to be on a track and somewhat like Nascar with a hint of Rollerball ;-) Not my thing but surely interesting for the gambling community. For sure the hour record would jump over 100km/h quickly coz F. Russo was not particularly elite level when he did it. I’ve seen one or two in traffic, no problem keeping up on the flat.

Which doesn’t mean teams don’t try to sneak stuff through

Well, now I'm just seeming argumentative. :) But there's no reason HPV racing would have to be on the track. A team did RAAM in the late 80s or early 90s in a few of these, did the crossing in roughly 4 days, I think?

Oh, cool, didn’t know that was permitted. You know, if these forums weren’t meant for argument which is an effective form of spreading knowledge, they’d be even less useful. I certainly don’t need to hear hundreds of people’s opinions when they are copy-pastes of others’ and generally limited to black/white and if lucky max. 2 shades of grey. The devil and fun is in the detail which rarely come out in single sentence comments. I have nothing against HPV road racing but certainly not in peleton form and there are many safety issues to think about. RAAM is not closed to traffic afaik (imo but not opinion) but does allow accompanying which provides safety but otherwise by the nature of being ultra aerodynamic, they’re even less visible than bikes. Also, the more advanced are now completely closed without windows and I’d not trust cameras to be sufficient to properly observe road details and conditions so there might have to be restrictions on how much visibility a rider should have and whether they can lie facing backwards. Then there is the question of outside assistance in case of standstill or climbing in/out, that’s just for starters but for sure it could be an attraction in closed off city centre roads, a bit like ultra soap cars, great support for advertising too.

1. Why not let people use them in a peloton? They actually provide a measure of protection for the riders. 2. They do make units that one can get in and out of easily, and all these problems have and would be fixed by riders, teams, and bike manufacturers (innovation), not a centralized body. 3. Though lower than standard bikes, they are much more visible than typical recumbents, and can have a safety flag above the bike if necessary. All in all, I don't see any of the issues being unsolvable. The reason this stuff doesn't happen is because the UCI effectively stopped their adoption, people want the bikes the pros use, not the best or fastest. So, again, abolish the UCI and more people (not less) will engage in and watch the sport.

1. In one sense yes but if they’re closed it wouldn’t be easy to avoid lateral knocking and that would often lead to crashes by toppling over. 2. Yes, technically everything would be possible. You’d still need to train though and I’m not sure many would feel comfortable doing so in traffic. 3. Are you in the US? Roads in many parts of the world are too complex for the flag thing to be a big help, especially now that taller SUVs have caught up. I’d be enthusiastic about anyone kickstarting the sport but I have no illusions about it becoming popular in public or for mobility. No past 2-wheel faired concepts ever gained traction, the at the time audacious Sinclair C5 was an even bigger flop than Delorean cars or soon the Cybertruck ;-) BMW’s roofed motorbike wasn’t much better accepted, there is no money to be made from these types of vehicles though I admit I’ve been surprised by the relative popularity of double front wheeled motorbikes but then they have a pretty generic motorbike look. People are very resistant to change when it comes to locomotion.

1. Pro riders, especially at that speed, wouldn't easily fall over. 2. Again, pro riders wouldn't really have that problem. In reality, upright bikes are inherently less stable, as their center of mass is higher. 3. Yes, the US. And we do have very complex roads (in the East, especially the mountains). Also, I don't think there are worse roads in developed countries than the US (for bikes). And remember, due to people wanting the bikes the pros ride, the UCI almost has the ability to decide what is sold, at least what is popular. So, if they allowed recumbents, or didn't exist, then people would choose what is most effective. Recumbents are more faster, and ones with fairing are much faster and are mostly weatherproof, making riding more practical for more weather conditions, increasing their usage for commuting, and in the end increasing health. Long story short, the UCI actually contributes to mortality, due to their foolish rules.

Maybe in the US they contribute but it most countries racing bikes are a tiny minority of all bike sales. Like with cars, most people have no desire to choose according to what the drive in F1 .

Maybe, but how many people touch a Motobecane or a Windsor, when they could buy a Trek or a Canyon? Brand name recognition matters, even if they're not buying "race" bikes.

Brand name recognition by its nature creates a perceptive biais regarding sales and popularity. If you hang out at Basketball matches you imagine peopke are taller than in reality. If you go to bike races you see brands that a small niche of people chose. Road bikes make up less than 25% of the EU market and racing bikes are only a small percentage of that percentage. Look at the list of brands in Pon Holdings or Acell Group, two market leaders in bike sales and you’ll notice that not only are our UCI conforming brands dwarfed or drowned in the selection but that people have as much choice in bike brands, styles, prices as in food, it’s just we tend only to look at what we notice in our immediate surroundings and we can then be perplexed when confronted with the facts. For example, which country do you think produces the most bikes in the EU? Average cost of a bike (excluding e-bikes) sold worldwide is 600$, I don’t think you’d get a UCI approved model for that. Giant probably defined thre UCI bike market more than the UCI has defined the bike market. As for your Windsors or (Danish?) Motobecanes, if by people you mean bike racing fans and not general bike users, yes I tend to agree they do suffer from some kind of complex that they try to compensate for by buying (as much as possible) that what pros use, in that sense they are far worse than F1 fans who obviously have a bigger problem with budget and legal issues :-)

Well, it's not just that people want what the pros use, it's that those are the brands they know. Although road bikes might be 25% of bikes sold, that doesn't include MTBs, gravel, cyclocross, etc. all of which are also used by pros, and influenced by bike advertising (mainly pro bike racing). As for "touring" bikes, or commuting bikes (or whatever they are called, the kind used

by people commuting in crowded Dutch cities), that's not what I'm speaking of, they don't need to be really efficient, and likely aren't all that influenced by bike advertising. And yes, you can get a UCI legal road bike for $400, if you ignore brand names, shipped to your door (in the US, anyhow). They aren't any worse than $800 big brand name bikes, they just don't have the brand name.

Why does there need to be centralized control at all?

Because SOMEONE has to make up rules in advance so everyone knows and they can avoid discussing everything last-minute, in- and post-race and accusing all of cheating, somebody has to be given the authority to do checks, to penalise. We can’t all go riding with guns and settle things ourselves. Do you know any sport that works without judges or a federation? To fight and represent their members, organise insurance, use of public infrastructure etc. I’m VERY open-minded as concerns viable alternatives but I’ve not seen anyone propose viable sustainable alternatives, even if some think throwing (oil) money at things will solve all problems and yes, short-term that puts a lot of band-aids and Rolexes on people but you know, sport was a great thing before money became involved and I’ve not seen much improvement because of it.

False choice fallacy. Just because there needs to be rules doesn't mean there needs to be a monopoly. I race all the time and haven't done a UCI race in years, see gravel racing in the US. That people still believe what you say just goes to show what a farce government schooling is. (And yes, that's precisely what teaches the false choice fallacy, because without that, they would lose power.)

Nobody said there should be or they want a monopoly, If someone wants to create a BETTER alternative I’m all for it, if you think oil money will achieve that past max a first decade, start travelling to their events. Like with buildings, I’d rather change an existing structure into something better and have made a first suggestion how to, trouble is most fans have little energy left after spending so much of it moaning, become an activist or at least vote with your wallet.

1. There is a better alternative. The US has chosen the gravel model. 2. What's with the obsession with oil? 3. I have voted with my wallet. I haven't done a UCI race in many years, and I race all the time.

Gravel is great in itself BUT, firstly, not every place or region has gravel roads, cycling can be done just about everywhere. Secondly let’s wait and see if it stays viable, after all 100y ago cycling was basically gravel and it died a death when roads became commonplace, Bmx didn’t stay popular, Cyclocross is only having its moment because of a few names, ice skating has never taken off outside a few countries, rollerskating has been forgotten even if it was shortly reinvented as blading, etc. The biggest problem of all with sport (and/or) splitting off in different directions is the risk of killing the little that was there. I’m not saying gravel will kill the TdF or Monuments or that boxing didn’t grow due to splitting but I’ve also seen the opposite. Cycling at the lower levels is a precarious thing. I’ve lived in a cycling country that got divided into 3 federations, the result, same number of riders (initially) but split into several races that compete for the same dates, ie race sizes which were often already sad have dropped to pathetic levels. In some categories you’re practically guaranteed a medal and points just by finishing and the number of medals has tripled, everyone’s a winner now but without merit. That was initially, now numbers are rock bottom because a whole bunch of enthusiasts just no longer enjoy the effort to go to a race not knowing if it will be one. So yes, fine if you can grow the overall user base significantly and sustainably but maybe someone should come with a backup plan? After all, we’re not doing that well and if we all quit the roads even more, drivers will lobby to never let us back on again.

1. Not gravel racing specifically, the gravel model. 2. The UCI isn't responsible for the success of pro road racing (mainly in Europe), but is detrimental to it being better. That's why almost no-one does UCI races in the US anymore. 3. Demand is mainly a natural phenomenon. People say you can build it, and you can a bit by supplying what people want (then they demand it), but that's an argument against the UCI, as they purposely stop innovation, which is a spectacle that people want to see. 4. The backup plan is the gravel model. That's why it grew while UCI cycling failed. 5. There will always be professional cycling as long as there are bike manufacturers (above a rock bottom level). The highest paid might be paid less, but just try to imagine the Tour not existing! Also, if people like me will pay to race (not be paid), there will always be bike races to watch. With video coverage of races getting less expensive (drones, go-pros), we will always have race coverage of some sort as well. I guess what I'm realizing is that the entire economic model of cycling is 40+ years out of date, and it wouldn't cost much at all to compete with it, if Unbound and the Lifetime Grand Prix actually cared to. -An Economist