Professional Cycling - Lance and Helmets

Howcome he doesn't always wear a helmet? Sometimes you see him riding with one, other times he just has that Postal hat on. What gives?

The UCI rules state that during a race the rider must wear a UCI approved helmet unless the finish is a mountain top finish. That's why you'll see these guys dump their lids as soon as they get to the last climb of the day.

I like that rule because of the injuries/deaths it prevents, but I also hate it. I like seeing riders without helmets. They look a lot more "old school" with just their cycling caps on.

I like that rule because of the injuries/deaths it prevents, but I also hate it. I like seeing riders without helmets. They look a lot more "old school" with just their cycling caps on.

G'day,

I'm with you, devil. We may still have Andrei Kivilev if this rule had of been introduced sooner,

cheers,

Hitchy

We may still have Andrei Kivilev if this rule had of been introduced sooner,


Yeah. Did you all hear how Tyler Hamilton landed on his head in that crash at the end of Stage 6? Trashed his helmet, he said.

There is a marker on the side of the road that tells the racers it's now OK to remove your helmet....often a team will place a soigneur at that point to collect the lids as they are dumped.

So why take the helmet off in the last climb? cant they still fall and hit their head at the top?

So why take the helmet off in the last climb? cant they still fall and hit their head at the top?

Because climbing a 20km col at race pace in France in July is unbearbly hot. Wearing a giant styrofoam cup on your head would be torture.
Plus if there is no descent down the other side, max speed would be 30-35 kmh....and only for short bursts as riders attack.

20-25kmh would be the norm.

Heat is no excuse.

Heat is no excuse.

You're right. It's a reason.

Like ed073 said - it's not just because of the heat - it's because the route itself is severely limiting the riders' speeds.

Without turning this into a helmet debate that's the biggest load of crap I've ever read here. You can still get injured at low speeds so that's not a good reason and the heat is a non issue, if they can wear a helmet for 160km they damn sure can wear it for an 8 km climb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/2842707.stm
http://www.letour.fr/stf/parisnice/2003/us/etape_03.html

It was a concession that the UCI made for the riders when when the helmet rule was implemented.

That's all.

These guys are good enough that the odds of killing themselves from a head injury at a wreck sustained at 10mph is negligible. Heck, just about anyone can fall off a bike and have enough time to react to not hit their head. Since there are no cars on the course other than team cars and the peoloton is usually WAY spread out, it's not a partcularly dangrous environment if you're on the last climb of the day. Personally, I'm OK with it. If I could ride on those conditions, I'd check my helmet too. There's a difference between being safe and being paranoid. The latter is what causes some people to wear knee and elbow pads when they ride their bike around the neighborhood... :)

These guys are good enough that the odds of killing themselves from a head injury at a wreck sustained at 10mph is negligible. Heck, just about anyone can fall off a bike and have enough time to react to not hit their head. Since there are no cars on the course other than team cars and the peoloton is usually WAY spread out, it's not a partcularly dangrous environment if you're on the last climb of the day. Personally, I'm OK with it. If I could ride on those conditions, I'd check my helmet too. There's a difference between being safe and being paranoid. The latter is what causes some people to wear knee and elbow pads when they ride their bike around the neighborhood... :)

Are you being serious? That's a joke, right?

Without turning this into a helmet debate that's the biggest load of crap I've ever read here. You can still get injured at low speeds so that's not a good reason and the heat is a non issue, if they can wear a helmet for 160km they damn sure can wear it for an 8 km climb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/2842707.stm
http://www.letour.fr/stf/parisnice/2003/us/etape_03.html

I have to agree. I was once knocked off my motorcycle while stopped at a traffic light. I fell directly sideways and had no time to twist, turn or do anything to mitigate the angle of my fall. My shoulder hit first and then my head followed with a whipping action. I cracked my helmet clean through and it wasn't a cheap one - a $200 Shoei. If I hadn't been wearing the bash hat, I think I'd be a vegetable today.

If I wanted to get all religious about it, I'd also say that the Tour has a responsibility to those watching and those who get into the sport because of seeing it to make the riders wear helmets all the time.

Without turning this into a helmet debate that's the biggest load of crap I've ever read here. You can still get injured at low speeds so that's not a good reason and the heat is a non issue, if they can wear a helmet for 160km they damn sure can wear it for an 8 km climb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/2842707.stm
http://www.letour.fr/stf/parisnice/2003/us/etape_03.html
Oh, jebus...the safety nazis are all set to begin inveighing. Try this-mind your own damn business! Let the *professional* riders and team managers perform their own risk assesment.

Oh, jebus...the safety nazis are all set to begin inveighing. Try this-mind your own damn business! Let the *professional* riders and team managers perform their own risk assesment.

Then they can race in private. Away from cameras and advertising that has untold influence. I suppose you don't mind when someone blows second-hand smoke in your face - afterall, they've performed their own risk assessment.

Then they can race in private. Away from cameras and advertising that has untold influence. I suppose you don't mind when someone blows second-hand smoke in your face - afterall, they've performed their own risk assessment.

these guys all train without helmets. they are clearly aware of the risks, and choose not to wear a lid. whether it's because they're "old school" or claim the helmet is uncomfortable, it's ok with me. i'm a huge hockey fan, and a player. i wear a full face shield, because one fake tooth is enough. the guys in the nhl, however, don't. some don't even wear a visor. they do it for a living, they get concessions thrown their way.

besides, F1 cars don't have airbags.

Hey I always loose my lid on the long climbs. If you going up Angeles Crest (backside Big Tajunga) in summer it can be over 100 degrees with zero air flow. It's freakn' hot and when sitting and climbing for over an hour I'll take the risk without my helmet. Now the helmet goes right back on as soon I start the decent, I may be dumb but I aint stupid!

I wear a full face shield, because one fake tooth is enough.

HAHAHA, interesting way to word that! Made me laugh. :)

these guys all train without helmets. they are clearly aware of the risks, and choose not to wear a lid. whether it's because they're "old school" or claim the helmet is uncomfortable, it's ok with me. i'm a huge hockey fan, and a player. i wear a full face shield, because one fake tooth is enough. the guys in the nhl, however, don't. some don't even wear a visor. they do it for a living, they get concessions thrown their way.

besides, F1 cars don't have airbags.

I agree.

I always felt it was up to the rider to choose to wear or not to wear, but I also did not think that the helmet added any to the heat with today's designs


But then I am not riding up those mountains at they speeds they are.

I just found this on a web site, I do not know how true or false it may be

http://www.bhsi.org/cooling.htm
"One manufacturer who tested a number of helmets in a wind tunnel at 18 mph against a bare metal headform in the same tunnel concluded that virtually any helmet provided better cooling than a bare head."

these guys all train without helmets. they are clearly aware of the risks, and choose not to wear a lid. whether it's because they're "old school" or claim the helmet is uncomfortable, it's ok with me. i'm a huge hockey fan, and a player. i wear a full face shield, because one fake tooth is enough. the guys in the nhl, however, don't. some don't even wear a visor. they do it for a living, they get concessions thrown their way.

besides, F1 cars don't have airbags.

I agree completely. I suppose, however, that busybodies will be busybodies.
Kudos on the F1 reference btw.

They don't add to the heat as much as the pads absorb so much sweat that it just runs down into your eyes. This is why I always loose mine on hot days during long climbs.

THis web site also has some references
http://www.bhsi.org/cooling.htm

References
We recommend at least two good articles on helmet cooling. Unfortunately, neither is available on the Web.

Andrew Ellis has done his PhD research on bike helmet cooling. It was published in the January-February 2001 issue of the Australian magazine Bicycling Australia. You can find the magazine on the Web but not the article.

Jennifer Reid and Eric Wang have published "A System for Quantifying the Cooling Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets" in the August, 2000 issue of the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. You can read the abstract, or perhaps get to the article if you subscribe.

And some older references

Burns, Richard. "How Hot the Hat?" Bike World, September, 1975
This was the first report we had seen of a scientific test of helmet coolness. Dick Burns put sensors on his head and rode around with his Bell Biker on. Results indicated a cooler head (in sun) with helmet than without. The article preceded any other published article on this subject by at least ten years. Bike World Magazine flourished for a short time in the mid-1970's.

Zahradnik, Fred "Helmet Buyer's Guide" Bicycling Magazine, Vol XXX, No. 4, May, 1989. This article reported on Bicycling's innovative ventilation testing with an instrumented headform heated internally and a cooling fan. Has a list of helmets available on the U.S. market for 1989, including their ranking in the ventilation test. Bicycling published a similar article in May of 1990 and May of 1991. Then they apparently retired their instrumented headform and stopped giving helmets ratings for ventilation. We don't know if the ratings were accurate or not, but these were ground-breaking articles superior to anything anyone publishes today on helmets in the US market.


again I think it is up to the rider to choose for their own reason , this just got me to thinking about the heat/cooling affects of helmets.

They don't add to the heat as much as the pads absorb so much sweat that it just runs down into your eyes. This is why I always loose mine on hot days during long climbs.

Ditto... On steep climbs on hot days and low-traffic roads the helmet comes off on the climb up and goes on at the summit: call it free will. It's something I've done since I started wearing a hard shell helmet some 20 years ago and it hasn't presented any issues. Call it acceptable risk.

Off-road cycling, always on. Motorcycle helmet, always on and where the heck do you find a good Shoei for $200 (USD)? I think the cheapest one I've ever owned was about twice that, but then again, they last a long time and you can remove the interior padding and wash-out the funk.

Are you being serious? That's a joke, right? Yes. No.

They're in a very controlled environment. The odds of them dying from head trauma sustained while riding up a mountain at 10 mph are astronomically low. (Heck, sometimes there's not even enough room to fall w/ all the crowds. :) ) Remember Stage ?15? last year? Lance had no helmet. Came out fine. It's just very long odds for them to suffer a serious accident as speeds that slow. Their greatest dangers would be getting run over by another rider, getting tangled up by the bike or getting hit by chase car/motorcycle. Personally, I'd be fine w/ it if they didn't have to wear the helmet for steep uphill, just as long as they had to put it back on for downhills, etc. But that would be a logistical nightmare... I don't wea a helmet because I'm afraid I'll fall. I did that many times as a kid on my bike. My concern is a driver or other cyclist causing "problems" or maybe an errant rock on a downhill. If I could have clear roads and I wasn't doing much more than 10-12 mph, I'd never wear a helmet. Under those circumstances, the odds of me sustaining any serious head trauma are less than the odds of me getting hit my a meeorite (OK. Maybe not THAT slim, but...) Additionally, I spend time while riding considering what I might do in certain situations. That way, when the time comes, I'm more prepared subconsciously. A good thing to do while driving too ("What would I do if this person beside me just came over all of the sudden?" etc)


I suppose you don't mind when someone blows second-hand smoke in your face - afterall, they've performed their own risk assessment TERRIBLE, WEAK analogy. Second-hand smoke has been proven to lead to lung cancer. The last time I checked, whether Lance wore a helmet on his ride had no effect on whether I got a head injury...

As long as the rest of us roadies wear them, I'm fine with the pros tossing them.

As long as the rest of us roadies wear them, I'm fine with the pros tossing them.

That's one way to think about it, but many future riders look to the pros as role models.

Well, if future riders only toss their helmets on an uphill finish, that'll be a big improvement over the current situation :) The UCI made a big step with this new rule and I think it strikes a good balance...

Howcome he doesn't always wear a helmet? Sometimes you see him riding with one, other times he just has that Postal hat on. What gives?

I commend you for your troll... well done.
Wait 'til half way through the tour then re-start up the oldest of holy wars.
Pure genius :D

- Buddy Lee

I commend you for your troll... well done.
Wait 'til half way through the tour then re-start up the oldest of holy wars.
Pure genius :D

- Buddy Lee

Maybe you've been around since the first holy war, but I'm kinda new at this. I think it was a valid question. :D

That's one way to think about it, but many future riders look to the pros as role models.

Again, a weak argument.

If you're dumb enough to not wear a helmet just because your role model doesn't wear one, then that's really your fault isn't it?

Just because someone else jumps off a bridge, doesn't mean you have to follow them.

these guys all train without helmets. they are clearly aware of the risks, and choose not to wear a lid. whether it's because they're "old school" or claim the helmet is uncomfortable, it's ok with me. i'm a huge hockey fan, and a player. i wear a full face shield, because one fake tooth is enough. the guys in the nhl, however, don't. some don't even wear a visor. they do it for a living, they get concessions thrown their way.

besides, F1 cars don't have airbags.

The general public cannot go out and buy an F1 car. A bike they can. Hockey players do not wear visors, yes, but they do wear helmets because of the dangers of hitting their heads on the ice. Anyone can go out and buy a bike and happily go ride it on a 4-lane highway with no compulsion to wear a helmet. I just think it's incumbent upon the Tour to enforce the helmet rule.

TERRIBLE, WEAK analogy. Second-hand smoke has been proven to lead to lung cancer. The last time I checked, whether Lance wore a helmet on his ride had no effect on whether I got a head injury...

Then you need to read more. Specifically on the influence of TV imagery especially in sports. The emulation is huge.

Again, a weak argument.

If you're dumb enough to not wear a helmet just because your role model doesn't wear one, then that's really your fault isn't it?

Just because someone else jumps off a bridge, doesn't mean you have to follow them.

That's the typically weak argument of the Libertarian crowd. The fact is, there are times when rules need to be legislated. And this, IMHO, is one of them.

I commend you for your troll... well done.
Wait 'til half way through the tour then re-start up the oldest of holy wars.
Pure genius :D

- Buddy Lee

G'day,

Agree, I'm waiting for 'stretch' to start the newest, 'Shimano vs campy..which is better?" or 'steel vs carbon, which is more comfortable?" threads........

cheers,

Hitchy (who KNOWS DA & carbon are better!)

Then you need to read more. Specifically on the influence of TV imagery especially in sports. The emulation is huge
In the words of The Torch: "Flame on!"

Again, your analogy was of the weakest kind. Second-smoke is physiologically capable of causing me cancer. I can not prevent it if I wanted to. If someone lights up near me, any smoke I inhale will have potentially serious health consequences. Though I do my best to leave or ask the person to put out the cigarette, I have no control over my well-being in that situation. This has been proved a million times over. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a study proving that Lance Armstrong dropping a helmet on an uphill climb will in any way, shape or form causes me physical injury. The only way I will suffer harm is through a conscious decision to do as Lance does. A choice. Your argument was/is inherently flawed because second-hand smoke has no choice associated with it (on my part). I cannot inhale the smoke and *choose* not to be affected by it. In order to eliminate any adverse effects, I must leave the area where the smoke is. I can watch Lance and *choose* not to chuck my helmet. I do not need to stop watching Lance. You said it yourself: TV imagery "influences" (and even this is weak since I have seen for "no helmets on the pros" years and have not been "influenced" to do anything but wear a helmet). Second-smoke does not. It *causes*.

Your analogy is of the worst kind. It attempts to cloud an issue by linking it to a controversial cause when no real connection exists. The helmet issue is purely one of *choice*. The smoke is one of *biology*. They are not related. Find a better one.

And as for legislating rules, you need to walk lightly there. There are some for whom you are a role model. Perhaps your behavior should be legislated so they will not follow you to some mistake, especially if you have children. Perhaps you should be fined if you *ever* do something that might sway your children (present or future) to do anything wrong or foolhardy. (Oh, and don't pull the "but they're professional athletes" crap. Someone needs to run that old Charles Barkley "I am not a role model" commerical again). When people start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming it on others, we'll be in much better shape. I'm waiting for the day when the "peas up the nose" admonition is no longer "pc". I'm moving to France then and I'll watch the flames of Anarchy race across America while I dance on a picture of George Bush (and ride my bike up the first 500m of Alpe d'Huez before keeling over dead, a happy man (oh, and I won't be wearing a helmet :) ))

"Flame off"

g'day,

you could *choose* to hold your breath!.......LOL

cheers,

Hitchy

This will never go anywhere.

There are some who believe rational, self interested individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions given fair warning.

Others believe the state should intervene in almost everything.


Now you can apply the helmet debate, cigarette advertising, mandatory seat belts, any intrusion by the government into our lives debate, into the above perspective.

Kenneth,
Maybe I wasn't clear with my statement. I didn't mean that I was looking to pros for guidance as a role model. I meant younger riders.

Hitchy,
What do component brand comparisons have to do with wearing helmets? I was thinking of safety when I started this thread. Obviously, I didn't know that they don't wear helmets when they are on slower climbs and not when they are screaming down long mountain decents. I'm not insinuating that they should wear helmets all the time, either. Again, I think it was a perfectly valid question.

And yes, if the water is deep enough, and I'm feelin' froggy; I'll jump off the bridge. :)

If there are any moderators reading this:

Feel free to lock this thread if you like; it's not being productive anymore.

Kenneth,
Maybe I wasn't clear with my statement. I didn't mean that I was looking to pros for guidance as a role model. I meant younger riders.

Hitchy,
What do component brand comparisons have to do with wearing helmets? I was thinking of safety when I started this thread. Obviously, I didn't know that they don't wear helmets when they are on slower climbs and not when they are screaming down long mountain decents. I'm not insinuating that they should wear helmets all the time, either. Again, I think it was a perfectly valid question.

And yes, if the water is deep enough, and I'm feelin' froggy; I'll jump off the bridge. :)


G'day,

I'm innocent (for once!)....you've misunderstood me...my comment was mean't to reflect the futility of the whole helmet debate...as well as the other 'never ending stories' I pointed out.....If anything, I'm leaning your way (as can be seen from my original post).,

cheers,

Hitchy

And yes, if the water is deep enough, and I'm feelin' froggy; I'll jump off the bridge Amen :) (and I'm pretty sure no one locks threads around here. What a terrible forum that must be to do such a thing :( )

"besides, F1 cars don't have airbags. "

your kidding me right? they only have to wear a HELMET, 7 point harness, 3 layers of fire proof nomex, a race suit on top, a car that has to pass the most stringent crash testing availiable, and when Ralf Shumacher crahed and indianapolis he STILL broke 2 vertebrae in his back. Senna was arguably the greatest F1 driver ever ( on talent not results) and he still mananged to get killed where there had been no fatalities for 10 years then 2 ont he same weekend.

saying that a rider can save himself in accident cause he is experienced is ludicrous. thats why they call it an accident. your out of control. if you were in control, by definition you wouldnt be having an accidnet. The amount of impact required to cause a brain injury is remarably small.

on the whole, i shun do gooders and their silly policies, but things like this is where i take a stand. If somthing is availiable to make it safer at little or no coast in weight or performance then it should be done.

In this world of skyrocketing insurance premiums and public liability , have a think about Lance , Ullrick, Hamilton etc having a freak accident and either ending up a vege or dying ( touch wood, i woudlnt wish it on anyone) what would that do to insurance on bike clubs as a whole as well as the tour? especially if it was shown by a coroner that wearing a simple damn helmet.

my 2 cents.

Oh, jebus...the safety nazis are all set to begin inveighing. Try this-mind your own damn business! Let the *professional* riders and team managers perform their own risk assesment.
First rule of online arguments. Refer to someone as a Nazi and YOU LOSE

First rule of online arguments. Refer to someone as a Nazi and YOU LOSE

2nd rule is they are all pretty meaningless and prove we have nothing better to do with our time. :)

2nd rule is they are all pretty meaningless and prove we have nothing better to do with our time. :)
A point well taken

A point well taken


......:)