Should UCI legal aero helmets be legal for races in the USA?

Should UCI legal aero helmets be legal for races in the USA?

The reason I ask is because it seems like Euro manufacturers are getting onboard with the UCI requirements and making some new aero models (for details see cyclingnews.com’s photo section)

So if it is good enough for the UCI, why can’t we wear them here? Why won’t the USCF or USAT allow them, just because they are not ANSI, SNELL or DOT?

You can race a UCI European triathlon or the Olympics in the aero helmet but not at your local sprint tri in Mytown USA.

What gives? Insight anyone? Are those Euro skulls just tougher than our US noggins?

http://www.protectiveaerohelmets.com/images/Helmet%20Frontside.JPG

http://www.protectiveaerohelmets.com/images/Iguana%2002.JPG

just because they are not ANSI, SNELL or DOT?

That’s your reason right there. Without a testing body of some sort, helmet manufacturers would foist dangerous junk on people. UCI is setting rules for a narrow group of grown up professionals, and is willing to slightly lower the bar of safety for non-mass start events.

Gary – you’ve seen Cat 4 criteriums. Do you think those nutballs should be wearing anything other than an ANSI/SNELL helmet (DOT only certifies motorsport helmets)? Even more dangerous are the BOP first-timers at a local sprint tri. USCF and USAT have a mission to help ensure safe conditions for the masses; UCI only has to worry about pros (and Olympians, I guess).

Should UCI legal aero helmets be legal for races in the USA?

… So if it is good enough for the UCI, why can’t we wear them here? Why won’t the USCF or USAT allow them, just because they are not ANSI, SNELL or DOT?

You can race a UCI European triathlon or the Olympics in the aero helmet but not at your local sprint tri in Mytown USA.

I believe you are slightly confused. To be legal for a European Triathlon a helmet has to be tested by a body that will give it the CE seal (conforming to the corresponding EN standard). This is equivalent to being tested by ANSI etc.

The UCI doesn’t enter the picture at all.

Now in Europe it is no problem to turn up with a ANSI or other USA based standards body tested helmet at a race. If you can do the same in the states … who knows…

Simon

PS: bike races are naturally a different kettle of fish

Well lets hope that the new Giro is going to be for sale in the US

I doubt it however, if it is made to pass the UCI rules only

UK helmet rules, which follow the UCI rules. Note that I got that DOT rule from the current USCF rulebook.

Here’s the UK rule:

8.6.1 A rider whilst racing or training in any cycling discipline, with the exception of training on the open road shall wear properly affixed protective headgear which must be of a hard/soft shell construction. “Aero Style” helmets are acceptable for individual time trials (road or track) providing they are in line with that which is permitted under the current UCI regulations.

            NOTE: In order to assist riders, the Federation advises all competitors that protective headgear must take the form of a hard/soft shell helmet which should conform to a recognised Standard such as SNELL B95 (Snell Memorial Foundation), AUS/NZS 2063:96 (Australian and New Zealand standard), DIN 33-954 (TUEV Institute  Germany), CPSC or EN 1078 (Europe). Other Standards are available, but competitors and/or parents/guardians should obtain proof that a Standard is adequate for the purpose for which they intend to use the article. 

            The current British Standard (BS 6863) is primarily intended for use by young riders. This standard is not intended to provide a complete specification for helmets for high speed or long distance riding. A copy of the complete foreword to the British Standard can be obtained from B.C.F. Headquarters.  

            It is emphasised that it is the responsibility of the rider (or the parent or guardian if the rider is under 18 years of age) to select a standard of protective headgear which offers protection against head injury and does not restrict the rider’s vision or hearing. This responsibility also applies to ensuring that the headgear is undamaged and in good condition. It is pointed out that any helmet which suffers damage (e.g. in the case of an accident or through mishandling) may no longer afford the same level of protection. 

            The Federation makes no warranties or representations regarding the adequacy of any Standard or the fitness for the purpose of any brand of protective headgear and will not accept any claims arising from the use of any particular headgear. 

and UCI rule:

GENERAL ORGANISATION OF CYCLING AS A SPORT **59 **E0104

1.3.031

  1. Wearing of rigid safety headgear shall be mandatory during competitions and training sessions

in the following disciplines: Track, Mountain-Bike, Cyclo-Cross, Trial and BMX.

Elite riders participating in Major Six-Day Races on wooden tracks shall be authorised to wear, at

their own risk, leather-strap helmets, **except during **races behind motor-cycles (“Dernys”) dur-ing

which the wearing of a hard helmet is mandatory.

  1. During competitions on the road, a rigid safety headgear shall be worn.

Except where there are legal provisions to the contrary, riders taking part in

international events for elite men of class 4 and above may, at their own

risk, remove their headgear during the final climb when the finish of the

event or stage is on or at the summit of that climb, subject to the following

conditions:

  1. the climb in question is at least 5 km in length,

  2. the headgear may not be removed before the start of the climb.

The headgear must be retrieved as per article 2.3.013…UCI CYCLING REGULATIONS

During training sessions on the road and in the case covered by the preced-ing

paragraph, the wearing of a rigid safety headgear is recommended. In

any case, riders must always comply with the relevant legal provisions.

  1. Each rider shall be responsible for:
  • ensuring that the helmet is homologated in compliance with official securi-ty

regulations and that the helmet can be identified as homologated.

  • wearing the helmet in accordance with the security regulations in order to

ensure full protection, including but not limited to a correct adjustment on

the head as well as a correct adjustment of the chin strap.

  • avoiding any manipulation which could reduce the protective characteris-tics

of the helmet and for not wearing a helmet which has been manipulat-ed

or which protective characteristics have been reduced.

(text modified on 5.05.03; 1.01.04).

10037ang./1general04 28/11/03 8:48 Page 60

Note that I got that DOT rule from the current USCF rulebook.

Yes, I noticed that once. What USCF is saying is that we are allowed to enter a bike race wearing a motorcycle helmet. Well, I guess it would be safe…

**ensuring that the helmet is homologated **

What, pray tell, is “homologated” in the eyes of UCI?

Dictionary.com says: Homologate: To approve, especially to confirm officially.

Does UCI specify a testing standard or authority?

What I am really saying is that for non-mass start races the USCF and USAT should relax the regulations for helmets to include any helmets passed by the UCI
.

What I am really saying is that for non-mass start races the USCF and USAT should relax the regulations for helmets to include any helmets passed by the UCI

Then your rules would by substantially less strict than those of any European Triathlon federation that I know of (which do not refer to UCI or UCI national federation rules wrt to helmets).

Simon

I think a better question is why aren’t those two helmets ANSI/Snell/DOT certified? :slight_smile: Really, how much more would it take?

And, the poster’s comment about CAT 4 crits is right on point. That’s wrestling on a bike and maybe motorcycle helmets should be REQUIRED. :slight_smile:

Both of those helmets ARE very smart looking, though.

-Robert

What I am really saying is that for non-mass start races the USCF and USAT should relax the regulations for helmets to include any helmets passed by the UCI

USCF calls for ANSI/Snell/CPSC approved helmets now, with only CPSC after 2010. USAT calls for ANSI/Snell for helmets manufactured up until the late 90’s, and CPSC for anything newer. The way I look at it is: how would the US insurance carriers react if the US federations they cover came out and said: “Well, we’re going to ‘relax’ the requirements, and allow these unapproved-by-US-standards helmets”. In the area of risk management, this is going in the completely wrong direction. The insurance carriers would either boost insurance premiums significantly, or drop coverage altogether.

If Canadian-based Louis Garneau can get the Prologue TT helmet approved by the CPSC standards, then the European companies should be able to do the same, if they choose to mass-market to the US.