van lierde
del corral
Del Corral corriò con un casco Ekoi CXR13. No es un casco certificado por la CPSC. Curiosamente es el mismo con el que van lierde ganò en hawaii.. Si se confirma, ¡ es una cacicada màs !
Helmet rule upheaval new Written by: Dan Empfield Added: Mon Nov 04 2013
Spain’s Victor Del Corral won Ironman Florida this past weekend with a superb 7:53:12. In so doing Del Corral had to overcome the fastest bike split ever produced in an Ironman, 4:02:17, by Andrew Starykowicz. Del Corral needed everything to overhaul Starky – who did not fold after his overwhelming ride – in the final miles of the run.
But Del Corral faces a DQ, not because he drafted, or cut the course, but because he used a helmet worn many times by many athletes while racing in the United States. Del Corral raced with an Ekoi CXR13. This is not a CPSC-certified helmet. One of the images you see contained here is the CXR13, snapped by our editor-in-chief Herbert Krabel, during bike check-in the day before this year’s Hawaiian Ironman World Championship. The other image is of this helmet aboard the winner of that race, Frederick Van Lierde, in a pic taken by Timothy Carlson.
Why is this helmet legal in Hawaii but not in Florida? Because USA Triathlon, sanctioner of both races race, grants a dispensation from the strict CPSC-only rule for world championships WTC produces in Las Vegas and Kona, only because there are so many foreign athletes entered in these races and it would cause mayhem for these athlete to be turned away because they don’t have conforming helmets. However nearly half the contestants in the 2,800-person Ironman Florida came from a foreign country, and this race is not exempted from the CPSC requirement. This means not only Del Corral races with a CE helmet, very likely more than 1000 of the event’s contestants did not wear a CPSC helmet (it is not WTC’s policy to check every helmet for a CPSC sticker, nor does USAT require this of WTC).
Could these foreign athletes buy CPSC helmets prior to the race? In Europe or Australia? Europe has its own standard, analogous to the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission), and the designation is CE. Japan and Australia have their own certifications and it is even against traffic laws to ride a bike anywhere in Australia without a helmet that meets the Australian standard. In other words, no, you cannot buy a CPSC helmet in these other countries for the same reason you cannot legally sell a non-CPSC helmet in the United States.
The exception to this is in athletic events, where reciprocity in helmet standards is honored. I have yet to find a single American athlete turned away from, or disqualified from, a race on non-U.S. soil because he or she arrived with a CPSC helmet. The great majority if not all other countries honor the CPSC sticker.
Barbara Riveros, the talented Chilean pro, was turned away from racing at HyVee this year because, while she appeared to have a CPSC helmet, the sticker was (so goes the narrative) removed or had fallen off. “They want a sticker that says CPSC,” was the takeaway from her father. He drove to a local Walmart, bought a cheap helmet bearing the sticker, removed the sticker and placed it in his daughter’s helmet. She was still not allowed to race because it was not the original CPSC sticker.
It’s entirely possible that Ms. Riveros’ helmet never bore a CPSC sticker, because it’s common for a helmet maker to manufacture two very similar helmets and place in these helmets the sticker specific to the country or continent of sale. In defense of the helmet decision made at HyVee, because the CE standard allows for a lighter helmet, some helmet makers manufacture to the CE standard, to meet the competitive needs of that market – and then make changes to the helmet, including an increase in the density of the foam – to make the helmet CPSC-compliant. Consequently, it might not be as ministerial as looking at Ms. Riveros’ Specialized Evade and knowing that, while the helmet is CPSC-certified in the U.S. it is necessary built to that standard if she got it in Europe.
“The rules are the rules whether we like them or not,” wrote one Slowtwitcher on a thread on this subject of helmets used during Ironman Florida. He’s absolutely right. You can’t preach that the process trumps the outcome if you’re only willing to follow the process when it suits you. But let’s look at the rule. This is from USA Triathlon’s rulebook. 5.9(a):
“Type of Helmet. All participants shall wear a protective head cover, undamaged and unaltered, which meets or exceeds the safety standards of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Helmets manufactured prior to March 10, 1999 must meet or exceed the safety standards of (i) the American National Standard Institute (ANSI Z-90.4), (ii) The Snell Memorial Foundation (Protective Headgear for Bicycle Users), or (iii) ASTM F-1446 or F-1447, and which is clearly labeled by the manufacturer as satisfying such standards. Removal of helmet cover, if required for that helmet to meet such safety standards, shall constitute an impermissible alteration in violation of this Section 5.9(a). Any violation of this Section 5.9(a) shall result in disqualification.”
I’ll strip it out the relevant part of this rule and reproduce it below so that we can focus on it:
All participants shall wear a protective head cover, undamaged and unaltered, which meets or exceeds the safety standards of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Three things seem to me to be relevant, and to make common sense:
First, that the helmet need not be a CPSC-certified helmet, but must be a helmet that is as safe as a CPSC helmet.
Second, that no sticker must be in the helmet. Certainly it’s easier for an official checking helmets if a sticker is in the helmet, but, the rules are the rules whether we like them or not. No sticker required, except for those Ansi or Snell helmets manufactured before 1999.
Third, it is not even a requirement that the helmet meet CPSC standards required for certification. It is required that it meet the safety standards the CPSC requires for certification. I can certainly imagine a case where a helmet would meet all safety standards, but has not yet met whatever procedural or financial hurdles required to get the sticker.
Is a CE helmet as safe as a CPSC helmet? That’s not a straightforward question to answer. Clint Mattacola does helmet R&D for Specialized Bicycles and works specifically in “World Wide Compliance and Documentation.” Does a CE helmet, in all relevant ways, meet or exceet the CPSC safety standard? “The short answer is no,” says Mattacola, “A CE certified helmet does not meet the CPSC standard.”
But it’s not quite that simple. What Matticola goes on to say is that it might meet the CPSC standard but you don’t know unless you test it, and unless it bears the sticker you don’t know if it’s been tested to that standard. “Is the CE certification one that a helmet can pass while still falling short of meeting the safety standards of the CPSC?” asks Matticola. “You don’t know until you test the helmet to the CPSC standard.”
What is the difference between the CE & CPSC standards? “Several things differ but the most prominent is the hemispherical anvil impact and the number of impacts per helmet,” answers Matticola. “CPSC requires that you impact the helmet against 3 anvils: flat, curb and hemispherical. CE requires only flat and curb, no hemispherical impact is required for CE certification.” Also, “The number of impacts required to certify a helmet to the CE standard is 2 impacts per helmet, one flat and one curb. The CPSC standard requires 4 impacts per helmet 2 flat and 2 hemispherical on 50% of the samples and one curb impact on 50% of the samples.”
Does this mean that a CPSC helmet is safer than a CE helmet? Not necessarily. It is probably more safe in very high impact crashes, because of the higher density foam required to pass the anvil tests described above. Some make the argument that a CE helmet is more safe in a lower-velocity crash that might be more typical of the majority of bike crashes. But it’s impossible to know because we don’t use human subjects as bicycle helmet crash test dummies.
But this discussion misses what seems to be some crucial points. USA Triathlon allows helmets the predate the CPSC’s involvement in helmet certification. As you see from the rule above, a helmet made pre-1999 must bear a Snell or Ansi sticker (this is the only sticker requirement in the rule). But this rule has not changed in a long time and one must ponder the wisdom of allowing a helmet that’s 14 years old or older. A CE helmet made today is certainly much safer than a CPSC-stickered helmet made a decade ago or an ANSI-stickered helmet made two decades ago. A CE helmet purchased this year is arguably safer, in any kind of crash, than the mean safety performance of all the CPSC, ANSI and Snell helmets in the transition area of any race today.
In other words, are we looking at the wrong metrics? Should we be looking at not only the safety of the helmet when it was built, but the age of the helmet? Today’s helmets, whether Australian (AS/NZS 2063), CPSC and CE, are pretty safe. What about helmets made a long time ago? Should we allow them in the race? Certainly you don’t want to disenfranchise people by disallowing their helmets, but right now there are thousands of athletes who’ve purchased wetsuits and swimskins costing from $200 to $700, only 3 or 4 years ago, who are disenfranchised.
Why is this helmet legal in Hawaii but not in Florida?
Because USA Triathlon, sanctioner of both races race, grants a dispensation from the strict CPSC-only rule for world championships WTC produces in Las Vegas and Kona, only because there are so many foreign athletes entered in these races and it would cause mayhem for these athlete to be turned away because they don’t have conforming helmets. However nearly half the contestants in the 2,800-person Ironman Florida came from a foreign country, and this race is not exempted from the CPSC requirement.
This means not only Del Corral races with a CE helmet, very likely more than 1000 of the event’s contestants did not wear a CPSC helmet (it is not WTC’s policy to check every helmet for a CPSC sticker, nor does USAT require this of WTC). Could these foreign athletes buy CPSC helmets prior to the race? In Europe or Australia?
Europe has its own standard, analogous to the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission), and the designation is CE. Japan and Australia have their own certifications and it is even against traffic laws to ride a bike anywhere in Australia without a helmet that meets the Australian standard. In other words, no, you cannot buy a CPSC helmet in these other countries for the same reason you cannot legally sell a non-CPSC helmet in the United States.
The exception to this is in athletic events, where reciprocity in helmet standards is honored. I have yet to find a single American athlete turned away from, or disqualified from, a race on non-U.S. soil because he or she arrived with a CPSC helmet. The great majority if not all other countries honor the CPSC sticker.
Barbara Riveros, the talented Chilean pro, was turned away from racing at HyVee this year because, while she appeared to have a CPSC helmet, the sticker was (so goes the narrative) removed or had fallen off. “They want a sticker that says CPSC,” was the takeaway from her father. He drove to a local Walmart, bought a cheap helmet bearing the sticker, removed the sticker and placed it in his daughter’s helmet. She was still not allowed to race because it was not the original CPSC sticker. It’s entirely possible that Ms. Riveros’ helmet never bore a CPSC sticker, because it’s common for a helmet maker to manufacture two very similar helmets and place in these helmets the sticker specific to the country or continent of sale.
In defense of the helmet decision made at HyVee, because the CE standard allows for a lighter helmet, some helmet makers manufacture to the CE standard, to meet the competitive needs of that market – and then make changes to the helmet, including an increase in the density of the foam – to make the helmet CPSC-compliant. Consequently, it might not be as ministerial as looking at Ms. Riveros’ Specialized Evade and knowing that, while the helmet is CPSC-certified in the U.S. it is necessary built to that standard if she got it in Europe.
“The rules are the rules whether we like them or not,” wrote one Slowtwitcher on a thread on this subject of helmets used during Ironman Florida. He’s absolutely right. You can’t preach that the process trumps the outcome if you’re only willing to follow the process when it suits you. But let’s look at the rule.
This is from USA Triathlon’s rulebook. 5.9(a): “Type of Helmet. All participants shall wear a protective head cover, undamaged and unaltered, which meets or exceeds the safety standards of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Helmets manufactured prior to March 10, 1999 must meet or exceed the safety standards of (i) the American National Standard Institute (ANSI Z-90.4), (ii) The Snell Memorial Foundation (Protective Headgear for Bicycle Users), or (iii) ASTM F-1446 or F-1447, and which is clearly labeled by the manufacturer as satisfying such standards. Removal of helmet cover, if required for that helmet to meet such safety standards, shall constitute an impermissible alteration in violation of this Section 5.9(a). Any violation of this Section 5.9(a) shall result in disqualification.”
I’ll strip it out the relevant part of this rule and reproduce it below so that we can focus on it: All participants shall wear a protective head cover, undamaged and unaltered, which meets or exceeds the safety standards of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Three things seem to me to be relevant, and to make common sense:
First, that the helmet need not be a CPSC-certified helmet, but must be a helmet that is as safe as a CPSC helmet.
Second, that no sticker must be in the helmet. Certainly it’s easier for an official checking helmets if a sticker is in the helmet, but, the rules are the rules whether we like them or not. No sticker required, except for those Ansi or Snell helmets manufactured before 1999.
Third, it is not even a requirement that the helmet meet CPSC standards required for certification. It is required that it meet the safety standards the CPSC requires for certification. I can certainly imagine a case where a helmet would meet all safety standards, but has not yet met whatever procedural or financial hurdles required to get the sticker. Is a CE helmet as safe as a CPSC helmet? That’s not a straightforward question to answer.
Clint Mattacola does helmet R&D for Specialized Bicycles and works specifically in “World Wide Compliance and Documentation.” Does a CE helmet, in all relevant ways, meet or exceet the CPSC safety standard? “The short answer is no,” says Mattacola, “A CE certified helmet does not meet the CPSC standard.” But it’s not quite that simple. What Matticola goes on to say is that it might meet the CPSC standard but you don’t know unless you test it, and unless it bears the sticker you don’t know if it’s been tested to that standard. “Is the CE certification one that a helmet can pass while still falling short of meeting the safety standards of the CPSC?” asks Matticola. “You don’t know until you test the helmet to the CPSC standard.”
What is the difference between the CE & CPSC standards? “Several things differ but the most prominent is the hemispherical anvil impact and the number of impacts per helmet,” answers Matticola. “CPSC requires that you impact the helmet against 3 anvils: flat, curb and hemispherical. CE requires only flat and curb, no hemispherical impact is required for CE certification.” Also, “The number of impacts required to certify a helmet to the CE standard is 2 impacts per helmet, one flat and one curb. The CPSC standard requires 4 impacts per helmet 2 flat and 2 hemispherical on 50% of the samples and one curb impact on 50% of the samples.”
Does this mean that a CPSC helmet is safer than a CE helmet?
Not necessarily. It is probably more safe in very high impact crashes, because of the higher density foam required to pass the anvil tests described above. Some make the argument that a CE helmet is more safe in a lower-velocity crash that might be more typical of the majority of bike crashes. But it’s impossible to know because we don’t use human subjects as bicycle helmet crash test dummies.
But this discussion misses what seems to be some crucial points. USA Triathlon allows helmets the predate the CPSC’s involvement in helmet certification. As you see from the rule above, a helmet made pre-1999 must bear a Snell or Ansi sticker (this is the only sticker requirement in the rule). But this rule has not changed in a long time and one must ponder the wisdom of allowing a helmet that’s 14 years old or older.
A CE helmet made today is certainly much safer than a CPSC-stickered helmet made a decade ago or an ANSI-stickered helmet made two decades ago. A CE helmet purchased this year is arguably safer, in any kind of crash, than the mean safety performance of all the CPSC, ANSI and Snell helmets in the transition area of any race today.
In other words, are we looking at the wrong metrics?
Should we be looking at not only the safety of the helmet when it was built, but the age of the helmet? Today’s helmets, whether Australian (AS/NZS 2063), CPSC and CE, are pretty safe. What about helmets made a long time ago? Should we allow them in the race? Certainly you don’t want to disenfranchise people by disallowing their helmets, but right now there are thousands of athletes who’ve purchased wetsuits and swimskins costing from $200 to $700, only 3 or 4 years ago, who are disenfranchised.
Who has the toughest safety standards on the planet? Australia. It’s standard is called AS/NZS 2063 and it’s universally accepted as the world’s most stringent. Australia was the first country to make helmets compulsory while riding on the road, and it’s not just illegal to sell helmets that are not AS/NZS 2063-certified helmet, you must also ride a helmet bearing that certification.
Except in competition. Here’s the rule in Australia, in triathlon, per Triathlon Australia’s rulebook, (3.3): “Bicycle helmets are compulsory and must be approved by a testing authority which is recognised by a national federation that is an affiliate of the International Triathlon Union (ITU).”
And, while CPSC or Department of Transportation motorcycle helmets are not allowed for motorcycle riding in Germany (U.S. servicemen are compelled to buy CE motorcycle helmets when billeted in that country), only the U.S. fails to honor helmet standard reciprocity while racing in another country.
Even Edward Becker, executive director of the Snell Foundation, an ardent supporter of tough helmet standards and a champion of the CPSC’s rigorous requirements told me, when asked what the most practical solution was to this problem of athletes traveling to race on foreign soil, that he favored requiring each athlete have a helmet that (at a minimum) conformed to his or her country’s helmet standard.
For years this issue has been languishing at the mid-level of governance in the U.S. Ben Fertic would routinely privately rail against the CPSC requirement, and he’s been out as CEO of WTC for 2-and-a-half years. Finally the big ship is turning as USA Triathlon seeks both to harmonize with the rules of competition used worldwide (a stated goal of USAT’s for some years now), as well as to keep onerous rules from ruining the race experience of those who in every other way respect and abide by standards of fair and safe racing. A panel convened to review rules of competition is looking at all rules and practices at variance with those used in other countries and the helmet rule is among them.
That’s good. However, as stated, officials ruling on helmet issues like that of Ms. Riveros and affecting Mr. Del Corral today are not required to demand either a CPSC sticker or even that the helmet is CPSC-certified. It’s not required in USAT’s rules, and it’s not creating havoc with USAT’s insurer. I have yet to find (I’ve tried, I’ve asked) anyone associated with USAT’s insurance to show me any evidence that an underwriter at a carrier is even familiar with the issue, let alone fixed on specific text in the helmet rule.
Bear in mind the implications of the helmet rule as it has been interpreted. Close to half the roughly 2,800 participants at Ironman Florida came from foreign countries, chiefly from the Eastern or Southern Hemispheres. Most of these countries live under correspondingly similar laws as those governing helmet sales in the U.S., specifically, that they have their own helmet safety standards and helmets sold in those countries must meet them.
Therefore, technically, under today’s understanding of USAT’s helmet rule, a CPSC helmet must be worn by every competitor. Some number between 1000 and 1,400 athletes alighting on U.S. Soil to compete in Ironman Florida is required to wear a helmet unobtainable in the country in which they live. They must fly to Panama City and queue up for the more-than-1000 helmets sold – where? Walmart? – in order to meet the rule’s requirement. This, while on the same weekend Americans flew to race in Noosa, Australia – a country with a stricter helmet standard than the CPSC’s – where reciprocity is the rule.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Opinion/Helmet_rule_upheaval__4013.html
.-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Victor Del Corral
El sueño de ganar IM Florida y bajar de las 8h en IM transformado en pesadilla por unas horas…
A penas 24h después de la prueba recibo una notificación de la organización en la se me advierte de una posible descalificación si se confirma la ausencia de la norma CPSC en mi casco. Rápidamente me pongo en contacto con EKOI y ellos se ponen a trabajar para demostrar el cumplimiento de esta norma en mi casco, el CXR13, ya que todos los de 2014 ya la han pasado, un procedimiento que aún está en curso ya que no es instantáneo.
En estos momentos todo esto ya forma parte del pasado, tengo la confirmación oficial por parte de la organización en la que se desestima la descalificación por haberme permitido el check in, no haberse presentado recurso oficial en el tiempo establecido, y no haber obtenido ninguna ventaja por el uso del mismo.
Ahora ya sí espero poder empezar a disfrutar de esta victoria.
Una vez más gracias a tod@s por vuestro apoyo y comprensión mostrado.
https://www.facebook.com/victor.delcorral?fref=ts
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Del Corral's victory stands new
Written by: Dan Empfield Date: Wed Nov 06 2013
Victor Del Corral’s win at Ironman Florida was in serious jeopardy for the 72 hours following the event. It was discovered through photographic evidence that the helmet he wore was not CPSC-certified. While the rules under which the event was contested do not explicitly say the helmet must bear a CPSC sticker, the “sticker” standard for legality has widely been used by USAT officials in the past. Here is the letter sent by WTC’s head of officials Jimmy Riccitello explaining the decision:
"In response to reports that Victor Del Corral used a helmet that did not comply with USAT Rule 5.9(a)/5.9A(a) during IRONMAN Florida, IRONMAN confirms that Mr. Del Corral did in fact use a non-compliant helmet and that he will not be disqualified.
"Although several non-compliant helmets were discovered prior to race morning and disallowed, Victor Del Corral's helmet was not discovered or brought to the attention of race officials until several hours after the race. Further, no official protest was filed within the specified period of time according to IRONMAN and USAT Competitive Rules. IRONMAN and USAT rules do not allow a disqualification under such a circumstance.
"IRONMAN recognizes the complexity of differing helmet rules in different countries and appreciates the challenges this causes for non-US athletes participating in IRONMAN races in the United States. IRONMAN is engaged in productive dialogue with USAT regarding this rule with hopes that USAT will allow foreign athletes to wear helmets approved by their national triathlon federation in IRONMAN races in the United States."
Del Corral’s helmet was the same Ekoi helmet used by the winner in the Hawaiian Ironman last month. This helmet was legal in Kona but not in Florida because WTC, producers of Ironman Florida, received an explicit exemption from the CPSC-only rule for both of its world championships, the 70.3 event in Las Vegas and the Go Pro Ironman World Championships in Hawaii.
The existing helmet rule has been a source of contention for years, primarily in Ironman races, because of the high number of athletes coming from foreign countries to race in these U.S.-based events. Of the 2,800 athletes racing in Panama City last weekend, at Ironman Florida, WTC estimates that near half were from foreign countries.
Part of USAT’s reason for allowing Del Corral’s win to stand was that the infraction wasn’t caught until after the race was completed. Some have criticized WTC officials for not checking for helmet compliance before the race. Were this to happen, it is estimated that as many several hundred foreign competitors would fall afoul of the rule, since it is legally not possible to buy a CPSC helmet in many countries for the same reason it is not possible to buy a non-CPSC helmet in the United States.
USA Triathlon recognizes the practical difficulty of this rule in events that draw a lot of non-U.S. competitors, and has convened a task force to look at the existing helmet rule and other rules that may be not only impractical but also out of step with rules in many or most other countries. USAT’s vice president Barry Siff is chairing the task force, and it also includes Jimmy Riccitello (WTC Head of Officials), Charlie Crawford (USAT Head of Officials), Joyce Donaldson (top ITU/USAT official in the U.S.), plus two elite athletes and two age group athletes.
Were the U.S. federation to come into conformity with many other national federations, any new rule might allow for “reciprocity” between national federations’ helmet standards. Here is a typical helmet rule from a typical national federation, in this case Triathlon Australia: “Bicycle helmets are compulsory and must be approved by a testing authority which is recognised by a national federation that is an affiliate of the International Triathlon Union (ITU) .”
This is, word-for-word, precisely the language in the ITU’s rulebook, and Australia allows for reciprocity even though its own national helmet standard is among the world’s most stringent. Triathlon Canada also simply defers to the ITU’s rulebook and so honors this same international reciprocity. The Deutsche Triathlon Union’s rule is similar, maybe even looser, and simply requires that the helmet must, roughly translated, “comply with the rules of an approved testing institute.”
This does technically allow a race to the bottom in standards, where any “testing authority” recognized by any ITU daughter national federation would be legal in a country using this helmet rule language.
The British Triathlon Federation is one NF that does not honor helmet standard reciprocity. It’s helmet rule reads:
“Approved cycling safety helmets of ANSI Z90.4, SNELL B90, EN 1078 or an equivalent national standard must be worn by competitors. NB A CE mark is NOT an approval mark.” NB is, one presumes, Nota Bene, latin for “note well,” shorthand for “pay attention.”
One assumes from this that a CPSC helmet would be legal for racing in the UK, as well as a helmet from Australia. But the widely used CE standard typically accepted in Continental Europe – this is the standard met by Del Corral’s Ekoi helmet – would not suffice for a race in the UK. However, I'm informed that the CE standard as now used is identical to EN 1078, so there is some confusion in the UK rule, at least to this writer.
USAT's Barry Siff said he’d like his rules task force, ideally, to be “in a position by the end of the year to make recommendations to the Board, which must approve any rules changes. That could be done as early as at our January meeting,” although it might delay or phase in any changes made to the rules, depending on the rule, similar to phase-ins attached previously to changes in rules for wetsuits and swim skins.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Del_Corral_s_victory_stands_4018.html
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario