The UCI has revealed its updated road and time trial helmet regulations for 2026, all but confirming that time-trial style helmets such as the POC Procen Air will be banned from mass-start road races next season.
In a press release published yesterday, the sport’s international governing body clarified how it will distinguish between 'traditional' and 'time trial' helmets going forward – and in which events such helmets can be used.
As is all too often the case, though, the new regulations appear to leave plenty of room for creative interpretation and, as a result, leave me with many unanswered questions.
A little background
TT helmets in road racing has been one of this year’s most notable pro tech trends, alongside huge chainrings, enormous time trial helmets and narrow handlebars.
The UCI first announced its intention to discriminate between ‘road’ and ‘time trial’ helmets back in June, as part of a wider set of revisions designed to improve rider safety by slowing down the peloton.
At the time of that original announcement, however, details on exactly how such a distinction would be drawn weren’t available. This caused consternation among many within the industry, who decried both the substance of the changes and, perhaps more importantly, the lack of time given to adapt their equipment to adhere to the updated rules.
While it backtracked on controversial aspects such as the minimum handlebar width rule in September, it appears the UCI is pressing ahead with its original helmet plans.
Defining a ‘traditional’ helmet
From 1 January 2026, the UCI will split helmets into two categories, 'traditional' and 'time trial'.
This is a marked change from the existing regulations, which make no such distinction.
While time trial helmets will face no additional restrictions, so-called traditional helmets must feature three ventilation holes, not cover the rider’s ears and must be used without a visor.
Notably, however, the overall dimensional restrictions remain the same as before: there’s simply a maximum size of 450x300x210mm (length, width, height).
Traditional helmets will be permitted in all road, track and cyclocross races, whereas time trial helmets will only be permitted in time trial and track events.
Unanswered questions
At face value, then, you might think that all seems quite simple and perhaps even reasonable.
After all, helmets such as the radical Giro Aerohead II (as worn by Jonas Vingegaard’s Team Visma–Lease a Bike) are clearly impractical for road racing, so it seems fair to implement new regulations that prevent their use in mass-start events.
The issue is the rules, as they’re laid out, leave me questioning whether some riders and teams will have room to carry on exactly as they have been doing up to now.
As the new rules are written, it would seem Kask’s Nirvana will be banned because it features small ear covers.
Likewise, POC’s Procen Air would appear to be banned despite its three prominent ventilation holes, because it features partial ear covers that are not designed to be removed.
In contrast, it seems Giro’s original Aerohead MIPS time trial helmet should pass as a ‘traditional’ helmet.
After all, there is a version that features four small ventilation holes (two on the front and two on the rear) and it only covers a rider's ears with the removable visor in place.
Worn without the visor, then, it appears to pass all four ‘tests’ of a ‘traditional’ helmet.
No spirit of the regulations
It seems unlikely this is how the UCI intends this rule to be interpreted, but the lack of detail in the new wording of the rules leaves plenty of room for interpretation.
As legendary Formula 1 designer Adrian Newey famously once said, though, “there’s no such thing as the spirit of the regulations regulation”.
And in this case, the lack of detail appears to leave riders, teams and helmet manufacturers with plenty of room to skirt around the rule's intended effect of slowing riders down to improve safety.
The new rule states, for example, that a traditional helmet “must have at least three (3) distinct air inlet openings on the shell structure”, while time trial helmets face ‘no restriction’.
They don’t specify how large these air inlet openings need to be – “distinct” isn’t a measurement – or where they should be located.
Clearly for a cooling effect, ventilation holes work best when positioned at the front of a helmet, so the on-rushing wind can enter the helmet shell. This isn’t a requirement of the new rules, however.
As it’s currently worded, it seems helmet manufacturers could simply put in three tiny slots somewhere on the helmet and call it a day.
That aside, it’s also worth noting that having ventilation holes on a helmet doesn’t necessarily slow it down.
Most TT helmets used at this year’s Tour de France, for example, feature some form of ventilation at the front, which can be used to improve both aerodynamics and cooling if done correctly, according to POC.
Ventilation holes, POC says, can negate the build-up of a “high-pressure zone at the front of the helmet”, which causes “stagnant air and additional air resistance”.
In any case, it’s also notable that there’s no change to the dimensional restrictions.
One of the defining features of modern time trial helmets is how outlandishly large they are getting, yet it’s worth reiterating that all models currently raced in the WorldTour conform to both the existing and updated UCI regulations for the category.
If a big TT helmet can be more aerodynamically efficient than a smaller one, then might we see more comically oversized aero road helmets, too? They would be allowed under the new rules, after all, provided they don’t cover a rider’s ears, feature three vents and don’t feature a visor.
With visors off the table for road racing, don't be surprised if we see more aerodynamically optimised sunglasses going forward, too.
I recently praised the UCI for its announcement of price caps for 2028 Olympic track bikes and equipment, but, unfortunately, this is another instance where a lack of detail in one of its technical regulations – combined with a rushed implementation – appears to leave it likely to fall short of its intended effects.
