Cavendish's illegal helmet?

greasedscotsman

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendi ... nship-race

So it seems it's one rule for Cavendish and another rule for everyone else?

Gazzaputt

greasedscotsman wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-with-illegal-helmet-in-world-championship-race

So it seems it's one rule for Cavendish and another rule for everyone else?

I'll think you'll find it's the UCI making these rules as they go along and enforcing when they feel like it.

rebs

That's a strange one considering the Kask helmets have had this feature for the last 2 years with Sky. The Kask helmets have looked quite nice with the covers on.

Cav's helmet in the Worlds RR was basically putting a condom over the top.

Rodrego Hernandez

According to UCI rules you aren't allowed oversocks either, as demonstrated by the commisaire in the GB national champs a few years ago (had to be a Brit).

Some of these rules are mental and as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, the UCI aren't fit to govern so their rules are pretty worthless.

tremayne

Very interesting. I followed the race and 100% remember either Cav or someone from Sky, oops - I mean British Cycling - being asked about 'the cover'.

The answer given at the time might be revealing because I'm certain it was along the lines of ' that isn't a cover - its an integral part of the helmet'.

No doubt at all that there was already some concern at that point!

Anyway - I'm still in awe of the effort our boys put in that day. Legendary just about sums it up.

edhornby

if the helmet retails with this cover, surely it's a modular helmet design so not additional, just part of the helmet itself like a removable pad?

This would be my defence if I had a kask and a commisar stood in front of me getting shirty.... I'm sure Gazzaput is right about the inconsistency though

prawny

Katusha used the Lazer ones in Flanders last year, or the year before. They were touted as cool weather covers, that's we're lotto c*cked up. Also with them shorts urgh.

greasedscotsman

edhornby wrote:

This would be my defence if I had a kask and a commisar stood in front of me getting shirty.... I'm sure Gazzaput is right about the inconsistency though

Commisar?

cougie

Its the same thing that British Cycling did with their track kit for the last Olympics. They made sure that all of their innovations had been used in World Cup events that year, and documented it so that if the Judges asked questions - they could prove they'd already been OK'd for use. So the KASK helmets are often used with the vents sealed etc...

avoidingmyphd

cougie wrote:

Its the same thing that British Cycling did with their track kit for the last Olympics. They made sure that all of their innovations had been used in World Cup events that year, and documented it so that if the Judges asked questions - they could prove they'd already been OK'd for use. So the KASK helmets are often used with the vents sealed etc...

This aspect of the GB set up is just plain weird. Is there a rule in cycling that if you sneak illegal equipment onto the track at one world cup event, then it is OK to use it from then on? I can't imagine there is, but Boardman's obsessive sneaking stuff onto the track and having it photographed seems to presuppose such a rule.

bompington

avoidingmyphd wrote:

cougie wrote:

Its the same thing that British Cycling did with their track kit for the last Olympics. They made sure that all of their innovations had been used in World Cup events that year, and documented it so that if the Judges asked questions - they could prove they'd already been OK'd for use. So the KASK helmets are often used with the vents sealed etc...

This aspect of the GB set up is just plain weird. Is there a rule in cycling that if you sneak illegal equipment onto the track at one world cup event, then it is OK to use it from then on? I can't imagine there is, but Boardman's obsessive sneaking stuff onto the track and having it photographed seems to presuppose such a rule.

What's weird about it? They're just playing by the rules: given that the UCI are prone to make them up on the spot, the only way to know if anything is going to be allowed is to try it out. And once you get the nod, it's only reasonable to be able to say "but you agreed to that last time" - unless, as seems to be the case with the infamous helmet, they go one way one time and another way the next.

cougie

I doubt they'd try illegal kit - but youd stand a better chance of them not outlawing stuff if you have proof that they let it past at the previous race. Just makes them look silly.

symo

UCI Commisar = Pat McQuaid Cockgobbler

Seriously they are losing it. What it someone chose to race in a ventless lid, would they be banned?

morstar

In all fairness to all concerned. If companies are continually developing new products and evolving existing ones, then technical legislation can only ever be reactive.
British cycling are quite within their rights to introduce products into competition to see if they are accepted and the UCI are entitled to reactively rule on the legality of equipment.
The big debate us about where the UCI draws the lines. Are they too prohibitive?

symo

Yes they are. Look at the hour record, all the innovations of Obree and Boardman gone, just to preserve 'The Athletes Hour'. The whole point of it is to see how far someone on a bike can go in an hour; not how far someone on 1950's technology can go in an hour.

Personally I am surprised the UCI hasn't banned bikes built after 1967.

cougie

I don't mind the athletes hour record. At least then we're measuring the man rather than the machine.
You can still have the ultimate hour record if you want with aero positions etc.

Didn't the new holder get done for drugs a while after ? I kind of think that if you get busted - you should lose all of your records. We all know its not that difficult to avoid testing positive.

ddraver

bompington wrote:

avoidingmyphd wrote:

cougie wrote:

Its the same thing that British Cycling did with their track kit for the last Olympics. They made sure that all of their innovations had been used in World Cup events that year, and documented it so that if the Judges asked questions - they could prove they'd already been OK'd for use. So the KASK helmets are often used with the vents sealed etc...

This aspect of the GB set up is just plain weird. Is there a rule in cycling that if you sneak illegal equipment onto the track at one world cup event, then it is OK to use it from then on? I can't imagine there is, but Boardman's obsessive sneaking stuff onto the track and having it photographed seems to presuppose such a rule.

What's weird about it? They're just playing by the rules: given that the UCI are prone to make them up on the spot, the only way to know if anything is going to be allowed is to try it out. And once you get the nod, it's only reasonable to be able to say "but you agreed to that last time" - unless, as seems to be the case with the infamous helmet, they go one way one time and another way the next.

I'd go further and say that they are playing to the relaity that the UCI are incapable of making, understanding and applying their own rules so this is the only way!

However, a large part of that was keeping the technology secret. No point designing a special bike for the olympics if the Aussie (for example) spanner monkey wonders over at a world cup event a year before and nicks all the ideas....