Recently retired from road racing, the Alabama native had a successful 15-year road career, most recently with Team TIBCO, that included winning the 2009 USA National Road Championship. Miller announced that 2013 would be her last as a professional road cyclist. How that decision will affect her future as a cyclocross racer is still unclear at this point, and Worlds will likely play a large part in that decision.

Over the course of an hour and a half conversation, Mike and Meredith go from being acquainted strangers to fast friends as they discover common interests, debate the merits of Facebook stalkers and the games that get invented around them, and reminisce about the early years of Meredith’s road racing career. We also learn that fast-pitch softball and soccer were Meredith’s first competitive sports, it was romance that introduced her to cycling, and living in Denmark that led to her first foray as a pro road racer.

Along the way they talk about the lure of retirement, the scary prospect of life after bike racing, and what jobs ex-cyclists are qualified for.

The M’s also get into some hypothetical discussions about how they would improve the state of women’s cycling, and other plans to save the world.

You’re going to absolutely love this entertaining and fascinating glimpse into the world of one of the preeminent cyclists in the United States.

Open Mic with Mike Creed is sponsored by The Colorado Cyclist, Mike’s very first professional cycling team in 1998. Thanks to everyone at Colorado Cyclist for their support of Mike over the years, and a big thank you to them for stepping up and sponsoring the podcast and offering $50 gift cards to our Twitter contest winners. Please visit their website at coloradocyclist.com and give them a follow on Twitter at @Co_Cyclist to show your appreciation for everything they do for us.

Be sure to call them at 1-800-688-8600 and mention the podcast for 15% off your purchase.

His palmares from 2012 include:

3km Pursuit World Champion

2012 UCI Paracycling Track World Championships
4th place – Kilo
1st place – Pursuit
11th place – Team Sprint

London 2012 Paralympics
4th place – Individual Pursuit
5th place – Time Trial

You can follow Colin on Twitter (@TTWorldChamp) and you can catch up with more of his activities on his blog.

Cyclismas pro confessions: Lessons from Lynch from Cyclismas on Vimeo.

His palmares from 2012 include:

3km Pursuit World Champion

2012 UCI Paracycling Track World Championships
4th place – Kilo
1st place – Pursuit
11th place – Team Sprint

London 2012 Paralympics
4th place – Individual Pursuit
5th place – Time Trial

You can follow Colin on Twitter (@TTWorldChamp) and you can catch up with more of his activities on his blog.

Last December saw my awards of Mass Distinction, but this year I’ve decided to be different as 2012 was a very special year indeed. A few categories have been deleted, and a few new categories have taken their place. Onward we go!

Best Revisionist History Attempt

• Rick Crawford for his “I only doped certain people and forgot about the others.”
• John Wilcockson, “We all screwed up during the Lance era so, bygones?”
• Michael Barry, “It was just so HARD. I HAD to dope. It wasn’t my fault. Forget what I said in 2010.”

And the winner is… Rick Crawford. Crawford’s partial admission, his comments surrounding the partial admission, and his excuses for his partial admission were weak attempts to hang onto his position coaching college athletes in Colorado. You were a coach. You were a mentor. Yes, you should have come forward back in 2001. You could have helped prevent an entire decade of corruption, doping, and fraud. And in the end you still got fired.

“I only doped two riders, I swear. Wait, what?” (yet another reason why we love @nyvelocity, see below for more)

Best Dramatic Performance

• Pat McQuaid for the October 22nd press conference announcing Lance Armstrong didn’t exist
• Brad Wiggins for his drinky-drinky smoke-filled holiday in Mallorca
• Team Katusha for World Tour licence denial

And the winner is… Team Katusha! Like there was any doubt.

Biggest Whiner in a Grand Tour

• Brad Wiggins for the Tour de France

And the winner is… Brad Wiggins! I mean, really, the rest of the whiners paled in comparison to Wiggo. I’m sending you a giant inflatable violin to play. I’m sure you can pick out a tune.

Most Likely to Hit the Tarmac

• Andy Schleck
• Mark Cavendish
• Pippo Pozzato

And the winner is … Andy Schleck! Tough year for crashes for all three of these gents, but Andy, who deployed the SchleckChute™ pretty much all year, had the worst luck. Best wishes for 2013!

Best Podium Performance by a Person, Duo, Trio, or Group

• Simon Clarke, “Call Me Maybe” at the Vuelta
• Ryder Hesjedal “Hockey Stick Flag” at the Giro
• Andreas Kloden, “Team Award Presentation” Tour de France

And the winner is … Simon Clarke! We adored the team’s “Call Me Maybe” viral video from the Vuelta, and his ballsy work on the podium was one of the highlights of the year for me!

Best Exit from a Race

• Johan Bruyneel “Tour de France”
• Frank Schleck “Tour de France”
• Lance Armstrong “Tour de France”

And the winner is … Johan Bruyneel! Yes, we enjoyed the fact the Tour folks basically told Flavio Becca his managerial secret weapon was “not desirable” for the Tour’s image. I loved how Johan attempted to spin it by saying it was his decision and what was best for the team. Right. He always has the team’s best interests at heart. Right.

Best Tow

• Mark Cavendish “Tour de France”
• Team GB “Men’s Olympic Road Race”
• Chris Froome “Tour de France”

And the winner is … Chris Froome! Yes Froomey towed Brad Wiggins all over France in July, for three weeks. Well, save one day where he got the flat and lost a minute twenty five and where the team left him to his own devices. But besides that one day, Froome did a brilliant job of ensuring Wiggo ended in yellow. I hope his midsection has recovered from the rope burns.

Best Example of Debauchery Following a Victory

• Brad Wiggins “Champs-Élysées After Party”
• Brad Wiggins “Post Olympic TT Victory Party”
• Brad Wiggins “Post SPOTY Award Win Party”

This was a tough one, but we have to go with… the SPOTY performance. Only because Wiggo looked the most retro disheveled after that particular drinking fest.

I’ll have a Wig Mac! Bradley Wiggins was getting a late-night snack in McDonald’s at 5am after winning SPOTY

Best Fashion Performance

• Jonathan Vaughters for “Britney Spears in drag”
• Lance Armstrong for “Triathlon Speedo”
• Brad Wiggins for “Tour de France Route Presentation”

And the winner is… Jonathan Vaughters! It’s all about the fishnets.

Best Twitter Zingerers

• @dwuori
• @saddleblaze
• @neilroad

And the winner is … @dwuori! Consistently the best producer of Twitter one-liners, and always with a humorous edge. ‘Twas a close vote!

Cycling Anti-Establishment Award

• @paulkimmage
• @neilroad
• @nyvelocity

And the winner is … @paulkimmage! Paul took no shite from anyone, filed a criminal complaint against the UCI, Verbruggen, and McQuaid, and expertly employed the phrase “Fuck off you fucking toe rag.”  He has stood for what’s right no matter the circumstances.

Tool of the Year

• Lance Armstrong
• Johan Bruyneel
• Hein Verbruggen

And the winner is … Johan Bruyneel! At least Lance backed away from douchebaggery after losing sponsors and pretty much almost every revenue stream, and Verbruggen has gone underground. Johan? He just doesn’t get it. Completely delusional. He belongs in “Tool of the Year” Hall of Fame!

Best Quote

• Hein Verbruggen “My reaction was strictly limited to the fact that Lance Armstrong was never found positive by the anti-doping laboratories, that there was no positive test and that there was nothing to be covered up.”
• Johan Bruyneel “A bunch of douches r gonna meet in London 2 change cycling. But why is @vaughters not on the list? He should be leading that group…” via Twitter.
• Miguel Indurain ” “Even now I believe in his innocence. He has always respected all the regulations… He has won all the cases he’s had.”

And the winner is … Miguel Indurain! Yes, we’ve come to expect ridiculous and contradictory quotes from Bruyneel and Verbruggen; however, Indurain was just a step above insanity with his appraisal of the Armstrong situation.

Best meeting for undisclosed purposes

• Phil Maertens, Cathy Mehl, and Johan Bruyneel at the Amgen Tour of California. The three were photographed hours after Johan was served “mysterious paperwork” by some government agency. After the serving, he disappeared to Europe, missing several important meetings.  I’m sure there was relief from Mehl and Maertens upon his departure.
• Pat McQuaid and Lance Armstrong via phone October 18th. Yes, our president actually took a phone call on his cellular phone from Lance Armstrong the Friday before the USADA decision. Oh to be a fly on that wall.
• Travis Tygart with (insert your name here).

And the winner is … Travis Tygart! His meetings single-handledly re-sculpted cycling. Whether or not the pile of steaming dog shite that is pro cycling right now will be sculpted into an Eiffel Tower or Guantanamo prison remains to be seen.

Best Alternative Live Cycling Feed Sites, Free to the Public!

• Cyclingfans.com
• Steephill.tv
• sportlemon.tv

It’s a three-way tie. Thanks to all three for providing decreased cubicle productivity across the globe! Slainte!

Best Mainstream Pundit

• David Harmon
• Rupert Guinness
• Andrea Berton

And the winner is … Rupert Guinness! Guinness was man enough to admit he made mistakes during the Armstrong era, and has continued to cover the sport with renewed vigour, bringing to the public key interviews with the key players in an Australian cycling, including new Oceania president Tracey Gaudry.

Horrorawful Mainstream Pundit

• Anthony Tan
• William Fotheringham
• Phil Liggett

And the winner is … Phil Liggett for the second year in a row. Liggett had tougher competition this year, especially with Fotheringham’s blatant Team Sky fanboy status and Anthony Tan’s bizarre escapades in punditry. But the winner, Phil Liggett, managed to distinguish himself as the Lance Armstrong sock puppet he truly is, especially with his latest attempts to excuse the disgraced former age group swimmer’s actions.

Dedication to Cycling Award

• David Walsh
• Mike Ashenden
• Betsy Andreu

And the winner is … Betsy Andreu! The woman was unswerving in her campaign to expose the truth about what has been occurring in cycling, a decade-plus-long process that finally finished in 2012. In typical Betsy fashion, she gave interviews, told her side of the story, and then went back to making lunch for her boys and daughter. No book deal. No TV series. Andreu did this for cycling (and some loving abuse from certain friends) and not for her own financial gain.

Charles Talleyrand Diplomacy Award

• Jonathan Vaughters
• George Hincapie
• Klaus Mueller

And the winner is … Jonathan Vaughters. Vaughters embodies all the ideals exuded by Talleyrand. He is an influential member of every cycling organisation that has a shot of wrestling some power away from the UCI. He’s got both sides of the fence covered with both the AIGCP and the breakaway cycling league people led by the Gifted Group. For good measure, he’s also part of the MPCC, and makes policy with the PCC under the auspices of the UCI. Hedge betting and shifting allegiances? Vaughters is the king. He has a career as a diplomat in his future. He would be one of the best in the world.

Best Cycling Clothing Company

• Rapha
• Vulpine
• Velobici

And the winner is … Vulpine! Not only does the company produce quality clothing products at affordable prices, but their dedication to the grassroots of cycling is impeccable. Vulpine’s founder Nick Hussey is assisting in a fan-backed women’s cycling initiative, as well as being extremely active in engaging the public on Twitter and his blog. The company has also pioneered a cycling fête, bringing a wide variety of cycling-related ventures together under one roof to showcase their wares, and they may turn the event into a travelling show. With a dog performing tricks for good measure.

Twitter Armchair Pundit Award

• @fmk_RoI
• @digger_forum
• @captaintbag1

And the winner is … @fmk_RoI. The opinionated Mr. M has been a consistent agitator on Twitter, challenging anyone of any stripe (including yours truly), any loyalty, or any level of the sport on a variety of subjects from the breakaway league to anti-doping efforts to pro-team finances. Fmk has had some memorable interactions on Twitter, most notably with Jonathan Vaughters, is a regular contributor of peerless book reviews to podiumcafe.com, and also graces our pages at cyclismas.com with unparalleled historical narratives and interviews.

Mr. World Tour Award

• Purito Rodriguez
• Adam Hansen
• Philippe Gilbert

And the winner is… Adam Hansen! Hansen finished ALL THREE grand tours this year, one of only 31 cyclists who have ever completed this feat. Hansen also makes himself very accessible to the fans and to journalist alike. A frequent tweeter, funnyman Hansen has earned the well-deserved title of top comedic talent in the peloton. We hope next year that Adam can break his Grand Tour stage victory goose egg, for as Greg Henderson noted on a broadcast of CCNN-TV earlier this year, that perennial bridesmaid Hansen failed to win any of the 63 stages he completed in 2012.

Ms. World Tour Award

• Marianne Vos
• Evelyn Stevens
• Liz Armitstead

And winner is … Marianne Vos. Like there was any doubt.

Best Mainstream News Website 

• Velonews
• Velonation
• Cyclingnews

And the winner is … Velonation! Uncompromising stories, dedicated coverage from a smaller team than either of its fellow finalists, but consistently punching above its weight, led by the never-sleeping, ever-tireless, Shane Stokes.

Best Alternative Cycling Site (other than Cyclismas)

• inrng.com
• tourchats.com
• nyvelocity.com

And the winner is … nyvelocity.com! Yeah, we may be a bit biased, but these gentlemen have been most key in exposing important information to the general cycling public, as well as crafting the legendary Toto comic strip.

Favourite UCI Overlord minion for 2012

• @asteinkamp
• @Bridie_OD
• @marijnfietst
• @kittyfondue

It’s tough picking my favourite person to interact with on Twitter (besides @cycletard, of course) BUT I did have to make a selection. Based upon a careful cross-comparison of retweets, interactions, favourites, and general great times on Twitter, the winner is…. @marijnfietst! Brilliant writer. Brilliant professional cyclist. An absolute gem on Twitter and in real life. The deserving champion of the social media jersey competition (she was robbed, methinks). Marijn de Vries is a great voice for cycling. Period.

Best commentating moment

• Andrea Berton for the Giro d’Italia Stage 15, Rabottini victory
• David Harmon, London Olympics Chris Hoy Keirin Final
• David Bond, UCI Lance Armstrong Geneva Press Conference

This was a close call. And the winner … Andrea Berton. His call of the Rabottini victory goes down as one of the most passionate displays of coverage cycling has seen in the past decade.

Best Doping Confessor

• Levi Leipheimer
• Tom Danielson
• George Hincapie

And the winner is … Levi Leipheimer. Levi has taken his punishment, endured a firing, and has gone about his business. Danielson could learn a thing or a hundred from Leipheimer.

Worst Doping Confessor

• Michele Ferrari
• Lance Armstrong
• Johan Bruyneel

And the winner is … Michele Ferrari. This competition was neck and neck until Ferrari came out with his incredible Al Jazeera interview. Just wow.

Best Future Publishing Pundit

• Daniel Friebe
• Daniel Benson
• Jane Aubrey

Since they are the cycling media juggernaut, it’s only fair they get their own category. I mean, Future gets something like a million hits a day on their collective properties. After a tough decision, the award goes to … Daniel Friebe! Not only because Friebe was “rumoured” to be behind some influential pseudonymous Twitter handles which may have disappeared over the course of 2012, more importantly, he wins the hair competition.

Cyclismas Best Grand Tour Award

• Tour de France
• Vuelta
• Giro d’ Italia

And the winner is … Giro d’Italia! Great television coverage, great Internet video coverage, the best post-race variety show, outstanding social media interactions led by Giro boss Michele Acquarone, and an amazing three-week spectacle that came down to the final stage in Milan. It produced the most panachey moment of 2012, according to Rapha’s Simon Mottram.

Thank you to all for an outstanding 2012. We’ll see you in 2013. Best wishes for a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

* * * * *

I’ve put in a lot of kilometers this week; sadly many of them have been on four wheels not two. I drove all the way from my home in Catalonia back to my family in the UK for Christmas. After that, I’m flying to Southern California for some sunshine and some studying, as well as the next racing season. As exciting as southern California is, and as much as I have good friends there, I was pretty upset to be leaving my friends in Catalonia. It’s where I feel most at home and most welcome. You can say what you like about crises, recessions, work ethics and exchange rates. The simple fact remains, we have less and we live more. I’ll take ten minutes of conversation in the bakery every day over a widescreen television pumping out the banalities of Jessica Simpson’s meaningless existence any day.

Philosophers tweeting before there was a Twitter

The difference between the U.S. and southern Europe (I feel the UK lies in between) can, in my opinion, be boiled down to how people conceive of others. I think the categorical imperative (yup – I just started writing about Kant on a cycling blog; that’s not the kind of thinking that makes you any friends in Georgia ) means more where I live. Let me cite an anecdote: I go to the same bakery in Barcelona once a week for the fantastic bread (Barcelona Reykjavik). Once when I was in Barcelona, my card was tapped out – no credit, no overdraft, no nothing. I didn’t know this until I handed it over to buy bread, and it bounced like silly putty; so I took the loaf out of my bag and began to wonder how I could hop the train home. The baker looked up at me with a “shit my friend, you’re in trouble” look, and I got the feeling that a means-based interaction would have ended there. But this one didn’t. He forcefully returned the loaf to my bag, along with one of yesterday’s croissants and ten euros for the train. “I read about what happened to you in El Pais, with the cycling team; we don’t let that happen to people here.” I was pretty touched by this. A week later I was even more touched, when I returned after flogging some books and bike parts to pay him back. He wasn’t having any of it. “I run a bakery, not a bank.” Isn’t that the antithesis of the greed which saw actual banks collapsing?

Treating people as an end in themselves, not a means to an end, is what differentiates the culture I love from that which I can’t understand. I share a language with people in the USA, a print culture, and common tastes in music and art, but sometimes I feel like I cannot communicate. My Catalan is far from exemplary but the understanding is so often complete. This isn’t to say that there aren’t wonderful, gernerous, friendly people in the U.S. – there are. But the culture doesn’t promote this way of thinking and I think that is a real crisis.

Sadly, this people-as-means-based thinking is pretty embedded in cycling. In a recent Twitter exchange with a few people, the idea was expressed that cycling is corrupt because of one or two individuals at the top. Now far be it frome me to suggest that people go and read Marx (because clearly, if someone’s solutions don’t work that means their analysis of the problem is also flawed, right?), but I’m pretty sure we’re dealing with a superstructural myopia here. It’s the substructure, the system, that’s flawed. The machine will keep burning up young men and popping out rich old men for as long as it continues in its current mould. For as long as contracts are temporary, and riders self-interested and un-unionized, then teams will have no longevity. And while I’m at this theme, can we please stop suggesting that Jonathan Vaughters would do anything differently? I’m sure he’s a nice man and I admire our common taste in facial hair, but go and ask Dan or Trent if they feel like he values them as people or merely as generators of income.

I can see all the objections coming in now so let me dismiss the ludicrous counter arguments before you tire out your fingers in the comment box: “It’s a professional sport, that’s how it works,” “Who gave you the right to be a professional?” etc., etc. Fine – it’s a professional sport, so you won’t object to the competitive advantage I can gain in the marketplace by doping, then? Presumably in this market-focused peloton, the buying and selling of races would be completely acceptable (and while we’re at that – there’s plenty of evidence that Armstrong paid Basso, but neither of them fits an ethnic stereotype quite as well as Vino). You’re all going to say “No” now, aren’t you? Doping isn’t okay, but why? Because you just feel it isn’t (and let’s face it, it’s NOT dangerous [see Lopez 2010, 2011] ). Well, once you find yourself in this position of self contradiction, consider this – are your feelings that doping is wrong really stronger than your feelings about those of us who earn –or try to earn – a living on the bottom rungs of this sport and then get shoved off once we’ve been burned out from racing too often in races which are too long?

What we need is a kinder, gentler, cycling – one with longevity of teams, with contracts that let riders plan for the future. One which values riders, mechanics, soigneurs, and directors as people and not products. One which develops other skills in riders at lower levels, giving them options outside the sport which empower them in negotiations with teams. A cycling in which we perceive our common interests as stakeholders, not merely as individuals fighting for the scraps from the high table.

Due to the significant change in the European climate and severe pressure on the Basque public institutions that sponsor the team, Madariaga had no other option but to request the meeting with Lagarde and McQuaid to work out arrangements that would give Euskaltel a much needed cash injection from the IMF to operate the team.

Euskaltel rider demonstrates the need for IMF intervention

However, Madariaga was not pleased with the “austerity measures,” which he referred to as “austerity f***ing cuts to our heritage” that were attached to the funds that could alleviate the budgetary challenges of the team.

“Look, this is an attempt by the IMF under the guise of the UCI to open up the Euskaltel cycling team to the world stage. Up until now, we have functioned well as an almost exclusively Basque team with Basque backers in one of the strongest cycling regions in the world. The downturn in the European economy and soon to be the world economy is the Trojan horse being used by McQuaid and his ilk to globalize our cycling team,” fumed Madariaga.

McQuaid was rather optimistic about the results of the meeting, concluding that he felt that Madariaga’s staunch Basque sentiments were a detriment to the sport and the austerity measures would be a benefit to not only the Euskaltel team but all of cycling.

Lagarde outlined the details of the requirements of Euskaltel to receive additional funding as follows:

• Increase the foreign content of the cycling component of the team by 32.2% including a minimum of one member from the countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
• Bring in the UCI to oversee team-building functions to ensure proper amalgamation of the foreign content of the rider contingent
• Reduce the coaching staff by 30% to streamline operations
• Eliminate the soigneur expense accounts
• Require IMF approval of team vehicles for non-race-related functions
• Convert the team bus from diesel power to biofuels imported from the United States
• Implement crash training protocols to reduce excessive amount of race crashes by 60% and thereby reducing equipments costs.
• Purchase mass-produced Taiwanese carbon frames.
• Increase the cycling team accessibility for marketing/public relations opportunities in the lucrative Asian market.

An Euskaltel rider demonstrates the need for crash-curbing protocols

As the Flammecast website is now entirely offline and all of my previous posts are not available, I shall provide a little bit of an introduction and re-invent myself slightly. Since Lanterne Rouge is a fairly ubiquitous cycling nom de guerre and also the handle of a better-known member of the Twitterati, I am now blogging under the name of “Cyclist at Large” (or, depending upon the season, A(t) Large Cyclist). In real life I am a professional paper shuffler and very amateur pedal pusher.

The reason for this name change will explain the nature of my brief. Most of the contributors to this website tend to focus on the pointy end of the cycling triangle – the pros – but in reality most of us are from an altogether different gene pool. I assume that we all share some common characteristics – a singleminded passion about the act of cycling, more enthusiasm than talent, and a propensity to spend a large portion of disposable income on cycling-related activities. The reality is that cycling as a participation sport is unique. Take football as an example – people like us could never expect to grace theaters such as the Camp Nou or Anfiled. However, cycling is different. We all can cycle the same roads and cols as the big boys and we all experience exactly the same emotions. The suffering is shared, the speed (velocity and/or stimulant) is not.

I will be blogging about everyday cycling things and from time to time will provide feedback on new cycling gadgets. In the past I have written about riding amateur events such as the Tour of Flanders and Milan-San Remo as well as a light-hearted look at my first season as a racing cyclist. This particular posting will cover a week of cycling in the Italian Alps undertaken earlier this year.  Future postings will cover a trip to the south of France (including taking in Ventoux) and a retrospective of my first season racing. In 2012 I hope to blog about racing as well as Milan-San Remo redux, Paris-Roubaix sportive and hopefully the Haute Route.

Bormio, my kind of town.

Having cycled fairly extensively in the French Alps, I thought it would be a good idea to look to Italy for a new challenge. I managed to convince a buddy from the US midwest (let us call him ‘Dave’) to make the trip to Italy at the end of June. Despite the differing travel distances and his having to take three flights, we managed to meet at the same baggage carousel in Milan Linate at exactly the same time. Bormio is a Roman era town in Lombardy, approximately three hours north of Milan, and is the gateway to many classic Italian climbs. From its base rise the climbs of the Stelvio and Gavia, and nearby is the Mortirolo. Just to the north lies Switzerland and to the east lies Austria.

Day 1: Bormio, Gavia, Ponte di Legno, Gavia, Bormio [60km]

Bormio sits at 1,225m above sea level.  The Gavia rises to 2,622m.  From Bormio the climb rolls along for just under 26km at an average gradient of 5.5 percent (although the average uphill gradient is 6.5 percent).  We were detained in Santa Caterina along the way as a big gran fondo was descending the Gavia in our direction.  An amazing spectacle: Italians treat gran fondi as races.  We witnessed daredevil descending, motorbike outriders with television cameras, team cars and even the yellow Shimano course car.  Once the bulk of the elite riders had passed, all of the quarantined onlookers resumed the climb.  I really enjoyed this climb as it is fairly shallow and predictable and I made it to the top before the miscellany of Belgian, Dutch and US riders.  A small victory for the big boned.  Once we regrouped, took some photos and refilled our bidons, we descended to the other side of the Gavia and the town of Ponte di Legno.

The non-classic side of the Stelvio, climbing from Bormio

 

I descended into Switzerland and to the Romanch-speaking Val Mustair (Romanch is one of the four official languages of Switzerland, the others being French, German and Italian).  On the way down, I passed a Team Sky pro heading towards the Stelvio.  I then rode along the valley to Prato allo Stelvio and the beginning of the classic (and much photographed) 48-hairpin ascent of the Stelvio.  The valley floor cycle was quite interesting from a cultural perspective as one passes from Switzerland nominally back into Italy (although German is the first language, with all signs in German first and then Italian).  The remote hamlets in this area passed from kingdom to kingdom over the centuries but the language, culture and architecture of the original settlers remain intact to this day and decidedly non-Italian.

The classic ascent of the Stelvio is 25km long with an average gradient of 7.4 percent and an altitude gain of 1,848m.  Somehow I managed to puncture two bends from the bottom of the climb (who the hell punctures going uphill?), and once back on the road again I had to make my way without any spare inner tubes.  The climb itself drags along at a fairly constant gradient and the second half is very beautiful.  I climbed the last few kilometers of the ascent with a guy from upstate New York.  After a lonely day in the saddle, some human company was very welcome and it helped keep me motivated.  Once we reached the top at 2,760m, I stopped for a hot dog, took some photos and descended back to Bormio – tired but satisfied.

Day 3: Bormio, Passo del Foscagno, Passo Eira, Livigno, Passo Eira, Passo del Foscagno, Bormio [77km]

Dave was feeling better and we decided to have an easier but nonetheless challenging day before our rest day.  Livigno is a remote Italian town surrounded on three sides by Switzerland and, aside from a historical reputation as a smuggling hotspot (now formalised as a free trade/tax free zone with its own border-type control) is beloved by cycling teams for high-altitude training.  As this was the week before the Tour de France, both BMC and Astana were based in Livigno.  Indeed, as we were climbing out of Bormio, we were passed in the opposite direction by two groups of BMC cyclists.  One group contained three cyclists, all of whom smiled and waved.  Clearly Cadel wasn’t amongst this group.  The other group was less friendly as they zoomed by.  From Bormio to Livigno is 38km and, adding the Foscagno and Eira climbs together (both over 2,000m at summit), the average uphill gradient is 6.2 percent with an altitude gain of 1,300m.  After two hard days in a row, this was just what the doctor ordered.  Neither climb was challenging and the descent down to Livigno was very enjoyable.  After a very nice lunch in Livigno we made headed back to Bormio, taking the climbs in reverse.

Day 4: Rest day – Bormio, Tirano, St. Moritz, Tirano, Bormio

What better way for some exhausted cyclists to spend their rest day than head for a day trip to St. Moritz for some recuperation (incidentally this was before it became common knowledge that a certain Italian ‘sports doctor’ of ill repute bases himself, his camper van, and his financial affairs out of St. Moritz).  We drove to Tirano to get the Bernina Express train across the mountains to St. Moritz.  If you happen to be in this area of the Italian Alps, I urge you to make this train journey.  It is an experience not to be missed.  The train slowly corkscrews through the Alps, snaking into Switzerland and passing by lakes and glaciers, before topping out at 2,253m at the Ospizio Bernina station above Lago Bianco, then slightly descending to St. Moritz.  Once we reached St. Moritz, we went for a wander, had lunch, chatted to some very ostentatious US ex-pats and then got the train back to Tirano.

St Moritz and not a GPS-enabled camper van in sight!

 

Day 5: Bormio, Mazzo, Mortirolo, Ponte di Legno, Gavia, Bormio [112km]

This was meant to be an easier day.  We had intended just climbing the Mortirolo, then heading back to Bormio for some smaller local climbs.  I had provisionally agreed to ride the longer (and actual) route on the following day with my new buddy from New York as none of his group had the stomach or legs for this.  Instead Dave and I ended up doing the entire loop by accident. I never fully appreciated what the phrase ‘death by a thousand cuts’ meant until I rode the Mortirolo.  There is no one knockout blow or stretch of the climb which particularly stands out – all of it is brutal and chips away at the legs and soul.  Looking up ahead to see kilometer after kilometer of 10+ percent road with no sign of remission is dispiriting.  The climb from Mazzo is 12.4km long at an average of 10.5 percent, maximum gradient of 18 percent and a height gain of 1,300m.  However, this does not tell the whole story as the last 1.5km is fairly shallow, maybe 5 percent average so the ‘moral’ average is well above 10.5 percent.  Attempting this climb with 39×27 was a challenge.

Cyclist at Large going for a gentle spin up the Mortirolo. Really...

 

When we rode the Mortirolo we had the good fortune to have closed roads on the ascent and descent as riders from the Tour Trans Alp (a week long amateur event starting in Germany) were on the Mortirolo at the same time.  Seeing the suffering on the faces of other riders was not enjoyable and one lady sounded like she was giving birth on the bike as she pedaled along.  After such a gruesome ascent, one expects something significant at the top of the climb (perhaps a bevy of comely maidens on hand to mop one’s brow) but in reality, it is barely heralded: just an unremarkable wooden sign saying the name of the climb and the altitude.  Since we couldn’t descend back to Mazzo we thought we could descend with the Trans Alp riders and somehow loop back to Bormio.  What an awesome descent it was  –  closed roads meant we could pick proper lines on the way down.  Once descended, we unintentionally found ourselves heading towards Ponte di Legno rather than to Bormio.  The only way to Bormio was back across the Gavia.  Dave was certain that I’d stitched him up but this was not the case!  After lunch in Ponte di Legno, we climbed back across the Gavia and descended back to Bormio.

Day 6: Bormio, Torre di Fraele-Canaco, Bormio, Bormio 2000, Bormio [48km]

Insofar as two climbs to 2,000m can be enjoyable and restful, these were.  After our unintended excursion on the preceding day, we decided to take it easy on Day 6.  The climb to Torre di Fraele was one of the most visually stunning and a nice steady leg-opener.  Over 14km, the average uphill gradient is 6.9 percent and the altitude gain is just under 800m.  This climb traces the German Imperial Way, used by medieval caravans to bring wine from Italy to trade for salt in central Europe.  The view from the tower at the top of the climb is outstanding.  We then descended back to Bormio and finished up with a climb to the ski station at Bormio 2000.  This climb is 10km long, with an average gradient of 7.2 percent and a gain of 730m.  A very steady climb through the forest on fairly patchy roads but unfortunately not rewarded by a nice vista at the top.

Part of the view from the Torre di Fraele

 

Some Practical Considerations

• Car rental is very expensive in Italy, particularly if you are hiring for a week or more. Additionally, driving from Milan to Bormio is not a whole lot of fun due to the state of roads on the second part of the journey: endless 10km+ long and narrow tunnels with only two lanes (one in each direction and no central division).  If you are in a group, it is cheaper to hire a driver/minibus to take you from Milan to Bormio and back (this is what other cyclists did).  For your rest day, you can consult the local bus timetable for trip options.  Whatever you do, don’t be tempted to opt for a diesel vehicle – particularly one which rolls like a beaten-down three-legged mule (like we did…).

• Hotels. Bormio has many great bike hotels (specifically catering to cyclists with workshops, secure storage and free overnight laundry).  We stayed in the excellent Hotel Alu.  I cannot ever recall staying in such a well-run hotel.  Alu has secure storage, a workshop and a good supply of maps available to cyclists.  Another great option is Hotel Funivia, which in addition to the usual storage and workshop, also employs two cycling guides to take guests on local climbs and has a support bus to carry jackets, packed lunches, etc.  In Hotel Alu guests were split fairly evenly between those in lycra with skinny tires (and waists) and those in leather with fat tires (and fatter waists).

• Bormio has a few good bike shops where it is possible to hire bikes and have repairs carried out on the go, but unlike places such as Bourg d’Oisans, cycling does not completely dominate the town.  Dave hired a Trek from one local bike shop but had endless envy of the guests from Hotel Funivia who were able to hire nice shiny (and light) Pinarellos.  I brought my own bike.

• You will eat like a demon, partly to replenish expended calories, and partly because Italian food is outstanding and incredibly fresh. Italian ice cream is not to be missed, and I can categorically disprove the French old wives’ tale that eating ice cream whilst cycling causes a ‘bad stomach.’  It’s what got me up the Stelvio! Hotel Alu had the most amazing breakfasts and suppers each day.  Whilst I may not have ridden with the aplomb of Anquetil, I certainly did dine with with his pre-race abandon.

 

My sports doctor from St Moritz says I should eat a lot of this...

• It is best to avoid some of the landmark climbs such as the Gavia and Stelvio on weekends due to car and, more particularly, motorbike traffic.  There was a massive difference between riding the Gavia on a Sunday and during mid-week.  One of the off-bike highlights of the trip was witnessing a leather-clad, shaven-headed, rotund biker having to be consoled mid-morning at our hotel by two of his female posse because he was too scared to go back up the Gavia for a sightseeing exercise with the other bikers in his group.  He didn’t feel safe descending all of those bends at speed on a big motorbike.  Try doing that at 70kmph on something which weighs practically nothing, has only 23mm of contact with the road, without any bodily protection, all while having to factor in traffic from bikes and cars.  I subsequently found out that to get back to their original departure point, the entire troupe of bikers and their molls had to take a massive detour around the scary and bendy mountain roads, vastly increasing their journey time. Chapeau!

• Excellent riding guides and route plans are available from the people at  www.altavaltellina.eu and  www.altarezia.eu.  These conveniently-sized guides are available in all hotels and mean that you do not need to hire a guide at any point, and will have at least a week of itenaries at your disposal.  Bormio is perfectly situated insofar as all roads from there lead to a climb to somewhere and the signage is excellent.

• Italy uses the Euro, although if you are planning on making this trip in 2012, who knows what the economic and political landscape of Europe will look like?  It is always prudent to carry some form of official ID with you when riding just in case you stray across a frontier – particularly if Switzerland seals all of its borders (the urban myth being that Switzerland can deploy to close all its border crossings at any time on 30 minutes notice…).

In summary, this was an excellent week of cycling.  The weather was perfect: 27-31 degrees celsius each day.  Dave was great company and we met many other interesting cyclists on the road.  If you tried France and want a bit more of a challenge and bang for your buck, then Bormio is the place for you.  Each climb is just a little bit tougher and the guys you meet out on the road are just a little bit more hardcore than you will find in France.  Avanti!

Not that long ago on Twitter I came across @Helmeteer_Chris, who is the PR guy for Lazer Sport, and I had some questions for him. That discussion grew into a full interview, which follows in two parts.

Primary sources of information for this interview:

BHSI

Questions about standards?

Helmet foam materials

Bikezilla:

I’m just curious, when one of your competitors comes out with a new helmet, do you guys go out and buy a dozen, just to see what the other guys might do better?

Chris Smith:

I can tell you for a fact that we do purchase and test competitor’s helmets. We’re not crashing them! But, we do, and I’m sure other manufacturers do, test helmets to assure that they’re meeting testing standards. But we’re also testing the actual weight vs. advertised weight, we’re testing airflow, we’re testing comfort.

So, yeah, when I go over to Belgium once or twice a year to meet with the guys in the office and when we go for rides, we’re not all wearing Lazer helmets.

I mean, that’s the only way you know what competitors are doing, as opposed to just getting anecdotal evidence. You gotta spend a significant amount of time riding those helmets in order to really understand what’s going on. And I’m sure similar people at similar levels at our competitors are doing the exact same thing.”

Bz:

Have you ever tried out one of those helmets and come away liking it better than yours? I won’t ask for a brand name.

CS:

Ahhhhh, I’ve tested other helmets where I’ve appreciated a specific feature, ‘Oh, God, this helmet is so light, or the venting on this particular helmet I really feel an amazing amount of air going over my head.’

But, I can tell you that at the end of the day there’s always been some kind of knock that would keep me from using a competitor’s helmet versus Lazer.”

Bz:

Not just because you’re paid to say it, you actually do prefer Lazer helmets.

CS:

I’ve been working for Lazer for three years and I’ve been riding with Lazer helmets for seven years. I started using Lazer helmets as soon as they started being sold in the United States.”

Bz:

Is it true that helmets are intentionally made to just meet or to barely exceed CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) or other standards? Meaning they intentionally do not exceed the standard by much?

Do Lazer Helmets exceed legal testing guidelines? If so, how?

CS:

I can speak on behalf of Lazer specifically.

There is a minimum testing standard, specifically for CPSC for the United States, but also the CE for the testing standard for Europe and the ASI testing standard for Australia. We exceed that standard by a factor of two.

Helmets we design and manufacture – and I believe this is very common in the bicycle industry – are meeting and exceeding the testing standards by a factor of two. I believe that’s very common if not the norm in the bicycle helmet industry.”

Bz:

Are the CE and ASI standards similar to the U.S. Standard?

CS:

The CE standard is less stringent than the CPSC standard. The ASI standard is more stringent than the CPSC standard.”

Bz:

So you exceed the most stringent [standard] by a factor of two?

CS:

Well, we are unique in the bicycle industry, I believe, in that we actually manufacture helmets specifically for the testing standard used in each market.

We exceed each specific market by a factor of two.

What I’m trying to say is, if you look at a particular model helmet, we may make that model helmet different ways depending upon the market that helmet is going to be sold in.

And what that will yield is a helmet that is more competitive in its category in that market.

Like in the CE market, the European market, the Genesis helmet is slightly lighter weight than it is in the CPSC market and the ASI market. And that’s just because in order to meet our internal testing standards and the CE testing standards we can get away with using less material in the European version of that helmet and make it more competitive at its price point and its segment in the market.”

Bz:

It’s not a matter of making it maximally safe, it’s a matter of making it competitive.

CS:

Yeah. Fundamentally, what you need to understand about helmets is, there’s lots of different helmets for lots of different types of cycling and different price points that consumers are willing to pay for a helmet. In order for a manufacturer to be successful in business, they need to deliver a product that the consumer wants to buy.

So, for a helmet that has a particular weight target it has to cost within a certain range or price. Or, a helmet within a certain price range, it has to have a certain maximum weight for it to be considered a legitimate contender in the marketplace.

So, the European helmets are a little bit more competitive on weight vs. price, because the testing standard is not as stringent.”

Bz:

What about industry standards? Has the helmet industry come up with its own set of testing standards? Or does each manufacturer come up with his own, which may or may not exceed the legal?

CS:

No. There’s no collaboration in the bicycle industry between manufacturers on helmet testing standards.

It’s a third entity, in the case of the United States it’s the CPSC that sets the testing standard that the manufacturers follow. But there’s no cooperation or work within the industry to develop a new standard, or to develop a standard other than what is currently accepted, which is the CPSC standard in the United States.”

Bz:

Is there much fluctuation, manufacturer to manufacturer, on exceeding the legal standard? Or does everyone exceed it by 2X?

CS:

I can’t speak for other manufacturers. I don’t know.

I know that a smart company will look to exceed that standard, for two reasons. Number one, to assure that the helmet is providing the maximum amount of safety that it can within that category of helmets. Whether you’re talking about a $300 helmet or whether you’re talking about a $30 helmet, you want it to be the safest helmet you can manufacture at that price point, using whatever technology you’re using and whatever benchmark maximum weight you’re trying to hit, or whatever. You want to deliver the safest helmet you can at that price point, to be competitive in the market.

But you’ve also go to take into account manufacturing process, and that will fluctuate.

If you’re using a mold to build the helmet foam, that mold is gonna start to wear over time. There might be factors in manufacturing that will affect how that single helmet will test out.

So, if you are designing a helmet and testing it out, pre-production samples, testing those out that they exceed the testing standard by, like I said, a factor of two. Because if you’re beating it by a factor of two and you lose one or two points because the mold is starting to wear out, or whatever reason, you can be sure you’re still far exceeding the testing standard.

Whereas, just hypothetically, if the drop test says, we don’t want to see forces any higher than X, and you’re hitting at X + .01, you basically don’t have any margin for error during the manufacturing process [when not aiming to intentionally exceed the minimum standard – Bz].

So, in the case of Lazer, and I believe that this is common in the helmet manufacturing industry, exceeding that standard by a certain factor, and I think two is pretty common, assures the manufacturer that they’re delivering a safe helmet and they’re accounting for any kind of issues during manufacturing that may knock a point or two off of the result during that test.”

Bz:

When should a helmet be replaced?

CS:

You talk about helmet manufacturers getting together and coming up with a testing standard. What I wish is that manufacturers would come up with a consistent message regarding helmet replacement. Either an amount of time, you know, you’ve had this helmet for two years you should really think about replacing it, and coming out with some hard data that says, okay, you leave this foam exposed to UV light for such and such a time the foam degrades and offers less protection, the plastic degrades and is more likely to crack or shatter or whatever.

I mean, every time you have it outside you’re exposing it to UV light regardless of whether it’s in direct sunlight or the clouds or whatever. And ozone can cause plastic and foam to deteriorate. It happens.

Obviously, there’s sales and marketing. The more people replace their helmets the more helmets we’re going to sell. But, I see people riding all the time with unbelievably old helmets. From the 1980s, you know, the huge Bell V – 1 Pro. Those, you know, look bomb proof, but realistically have been around for so long that the foam is basically just an extension of the plastic on the outside of the helmet. In case of an impact the energy will go right into your skull.

Without testing, I don’t want to say that you’d be better off with no helmet at all, but…

Bz:

What happens to foam when it gets old?

CS:

It’s more brittle.

Bz:

It’s ability to give in an impact is gone?

CS:

Basically what’s happening is the cells in the foam close up. The amount of air inside the foam is being reduced. As the air in the foam is reduced, the foam is hardening up and the foam is then less able to absorb energy because it’s the air pockets within the foam that are actually absorbing that energy and compressing.

Bz:

At about what period of time does that occur? Or is it so much that you really should replace your helmet? Two years? Five years? Ten years?

CS:

I tell people that at a minimum they should be looking at a new helmet every three years. And that’s not just for deterioration of the foam. Because the foam would probably last longer than that. But, the more you use a helmet, the more it gets banged up. If you travel with the helmet, the helmet going to get knocked around. If you have in a suitcase or luggage, unless you take a lot of extraordinary care in order to protect the foam in the helmet, every time you move it around the foam gets dinged, the foam is compressing and compressed foam does not offer protection for the rider’s head. So, especially if you’re using it regularly, I think a new helmet every three years is not unrealistic.

Again, I’m not a scientist or an engineer, so I haven’t seen any empirical evidence.

Bz:

What’s the difference between a $25 helmet from Walmart or Target or some other big discount store and a $150 helmet? Because, just to look at them they all seem about the same; Styrofoam core, plastic shell.

CS:

Weight, ventilation, airflow, dual-density foam, additional reinforcement, better retention systems for more secure fit/comfort.

Glue-on shell vs. an in-mold manufactured helmet. A glue-on shell is basically, you mold the foam, then you have the shell that you glue on to the outer surface and you reinforce that with a piece of tape that goes around the shell.

That’s the original manufacturing process, when companies started to get into helmet design.

Then they switch to what’s called an “in-mold” manufacturing process, where you actually have the outer plastic shell, which you put into the mold and then you inject foam and it’s kind of all built as one piece.

Then, beyond that, you can have multiple-piece manufacturing process where you have the shell, you have one part of the foam that is injected at one point, you have another part of the foam that’s injected at another point, you can have multiple pieces of foam that are connected into the helmet during the manufacturing process. That allows us to piece objects inside the foam in order to increase the durability of the helmet in the event of an impact.

It also allows you to use multi-density foam. So if you want to lighten up the overall weight of the helmet, you can research areas of the helmet that are less critical for the protection of the rider’s head and you can use a lighter weight foam in that area in order to reduce the overall weight of the helmet.

But, basically, as you go up in price, you’re using a more sophisticated manufacturing process and trying to achieve the same ultimate testing result, using less materials.

You’re also trying to improve the performance of the helmet at the same time. You’re increasing the size of the vents, you’re putting air channels into the interior of the helmet to draw more air through the helmet, making it more comfortable. All of that stuff goes back to that sophisticated manufacturing process and very easily drives up the overall manufacturing cost of the individual helmet.

Also, the sophistication of the retention system. That has to do with how securely the helmet fits on the rider’s head. It also has to do with how comfortably the helmet fits on the rider’s head.

In a very simple retention system, maybe a recreational rider who isn’t going to be spending a long time on a bike, maybe doesn’t need a helmet that is going to be comfortable after seven or eight or nine hours on the bike. So they can get away with something a little less sophisticated. Whereas somebody who is a granfondo rider or a racer, doing a lot of training, they’re wearing their helmet for an extended amount of time. So they want something that is very comfortable for a long period of time, is very easy to adjust and maybe had multiple pieces that are involved in order to build that retention system.

The development of that retention system, building the helmet around that retention system and the multiple parts that go into it can also drive up the manufacturing cost. The straps themselves, you can use lighter weight strap materials in order to increase the comfort of the helmet, you can use a more sophisticated buckle system in order to lighten up the weight of the helmet. Or, in the case of our magnetic system, just to make it easier for the two pieces to connect. There’s a manufacturing expense to doing that as well.”

Bz:

You mention the two different types of manufacturing, the two-part helmet with a glued on shell, and the one part helmet with the foam poured into the shell. At the high or low end of either, is one type inherently safer than the other?

CS:

No. No. With current testing standards is one safer than the other? No. Because, they are both able to meet the testing standard and protect the rider’s head in the event of an impact.

I, personally, would have no hesitancy going out and riding with a $25 or $30 helmet. It just would not be as light weight, it wouldn’t offer the amount of airflow through the helmet, it may not be as comfortable, and it certainly wouldn’t look the way that I would want a helmet to look.

But as far as ultimate safety, it’s gonna do the same job as a $300 helmet is gonna do.

It’s just that the more expensive helmet is going to offer some additional features for the rider that somebody who’s going out and riding for 20 to 30 minutes is not going to… they don’t need, they’re not going to appreciate it, they’re not going to want to spend the money on it.

Bz:

In a multi-density foam helmet, what area or areas will normally contain the lighter-weight foam? How is that determined?

CS:

We make a determination regarding the areas of the helmet that are less critical for the protection of the head or the integrity of the helmet in the event of an impact, and those are the areas of the helmet that we can replace with the lighter weight foam. The helmet is then tested internally to assure that it passes testing within our margins. If it does not then we change the ratio between standard and lighter-weight foam and retest.”

Bz:

Pat McQuaid recently complained that the frames for $4,000 bikes are made in China at a cost of less than $40.

Manufacturers say he’s off the mark by as much as a factor of 10, but none of them are showing the invoices to prove that.

What is the actual cost of manufacturing a $25 helmet? A $150 helmet?

CS:

Hmmm, I don’t know.

I can tell you that looking at pure manufacturing costs you’re missing a portion, and a significant portion, of the expense of bringing a product to market. Research, development, engineering, prototyping, pre-production prototyping, testing. There’s a lot more that goes into manufacturing a product, regardless of what a product is, than just the raw materials and time spent in manufacturing it.

Bz:

Are those costs proportionally multiplied when you’re manufacturing a higher-end helmet?

CS:

Yeah! You have the in-mold process, where you’re molding the helmet out of different pieces of foam and you’re introducing different material as you’re manufacturing it.

Other than the machines and the shell and the foam in the helmet, there’s a lot of hand labor that does into manufacturing these helmets. It’s actually shocking.

We’re talking about threading the straps. You think about the complexity of these helmet straps, they’re all hand threaded. The more sophistication retention mechanism the more time has to be spent threading the helmet strap through that retention system. The more sophisticated the buckle, there’s got to be a procedure.

Our retention system, again, is pretty sophisticated and it has to be fed through the the exterior of the helmet, the interior of the helmet, during the molding process.

So, yeah, I think for other manufacturing factors… our more expensive helmets require, not a significant amount of raw materials, in a lot of cases it’s actually less raw materials. But the manufacturing process is more sophisticated and there’s a lot more hand laboring put into the manufacturing.

Bz:

What percentage of the overall manufacturing cost does R&D make up in a $25 helmet? A $300 helmet?

CS:

Impossible to say because these costs are highest at the first helmet sold and then are amortized over the life of the helmet model. The longer a helmet model stays in our product line or the more successful the helmet is in regard to sales the lower the cost of R&D makes up.”

Bz:

I’ve noticed that lower-end helmets often don’t even come in packages. They’re just hung on a peg.

CS:

Yeah! In Europe they’re not even hung on a shelf. They’re thrown into a big plastic bin. Just loose helmets thrown into a bin. Consumers just come in, they throw one on their head, ‘Yep, that fits. I’m ready to go.’”

Bz:

If you just pick up a helmet and look at it, it would seem to be made of about the same material as a cheap picnic cooler, except for the density of the foam.

How is helmet foam different from picnic cooler foam?

CS:

“That is a good question and one that I don’t have the answer to. Not being a helmet engineer and not being familiar with the different types of expanded styrene foams that are used it would be pure speculation on my part.

I believe the size of the individual cells, the air cells in the foam, the air cells on an EPS cooler may be very large and larger air cells do not offer the same kind of resistance to impact or the durability in a helmet that you’re going to be wearing on a daily basis.

When you talk about a helmet that uses dual-density foam, as I mentioned earlier, you’re IDing parts of the helmet that are less critical for the protection of the rider’s head and you’re using a lighter-weight foam, basically I think what you’re doing is using a foam that has a higher air quantity. The cells in that foam are bigger and they’re trapping more air and that lightens up the overall weight of the foam.

But, at the end of the day I believe, again not being an engineer and not knowing all the details about it, EPS (expanded polystyrene) is EPS.”

NOTE: Chris emailed the official answer the next day (along with a couple others). – Bz

CS:

The chemical composition of the foam is the same [as in Styrofoam coolers], but the quality of the foam in regard to the size/shape/consistency of the foam bubbles at the time of expansion during production is higher in the foam used in helmets.”

Bz:

Of the materials, EPS, SXP, EPP and SEPP, which best protects in case of impact? Which prevents the most energy from reaching the head and brain?

CS:

I have not been able to get information from our engineers regarding these various types of foam. My limited understanding on this is that SXP foam is a version of EPS foam and is required for use in CPSC-certified helmets and also mandated for use in the state of California. I believe that this is the industry standard for use.”

Bz:

Is one of these materials destined to be the “future” of cycling helmets? Or will EPS remain the standard for the foreseeable future? If it will, will you explain why? Could you (or one of your engineers, perhaps) give me a list of the advantages and disadvantages, the benefits and drawbacks for each material?

[This answer was emailed after the interview. – Bz]

CS:

Whatever version of EPS foam (SXP) is being used now is going to be the standard in the foreseeable future as this raw material is readily available and currently most economical to use in manufacturing. Should another foam be determined to offer greater protection and the industry or regulative agencies determine that it should be used at that time, a switch will be made. I don’t see this happening in the foreseeable future, however. Keep in mind that EPS foam is not just used in the bicycle industry but other sports industries that require the use of a helmet, as well as the immense motorcycle helmet industry. I would expect the motorcycle helmet market will drive any significant changes to materials used in the bicycle helmet industry.”

Bz:

Manufacturers often have to choose a foam density that will pass impact tests based on the number and size of vents. A helmet with larger vents or more vents, will have thinner vent walls/ribs so it will require a foam that is more dense.

This means that you have a smaller harder surface area smashing into your skull in a crash.

So even though two helmets may have identical numbers in an impact test, are helmets with larger or more vents actually less safe in crashes?

CS:

Ummmmmmmm… that is a question that is impossible for me to answer without any kind of testing data to prove it one way or the other.

I mean, you can speculate all you want on that theory. Unless you’re going to get helmets and you’re going to go out and going to set up a testing standard, and actually get empirical data that says something one way or the other, then it’s basically just speculation at this point. That’s not something that I’d be able to comment on.

Every manufacturer is in the same boat. What manufacturers are facing is the demand of the market. I may have said to you, I’ve said to other people, you can make the safest helmet in the world. You can manufacture a hundred thousand of them and promptly go out of business because nobody is going to buy them.

People want helmets that, depending on the price point and the level of consumer you’re talking about these are going to be different priorities, but people want a helmet that looks stylish, they want a helmet that is lightweight and comfortable to wear, and they want a helmet that’s going to offer some airflow.

Again, you can make the safest helmet in the world with no air vents, a huge amount of foam, but nobody is going to wear it. Or very, very few people are going to wear it. Certainly not enough to keep your company viable and in business.

You’ve got to match your product to the demands of the consumers and match your product to what competitors are offering. And if you can offer A, B and C features that kind of exceed what the competitors are doing at that price point, and offer increased safety or better performance or whatever, that’s where you can distinguish yourself in the market.

But ultimately, regrettably, if safety is the only goal in helmet manufacturing, then you’re not going to survive as a company. As a consumer, yeah, it can offer benefit, but that’s just not what the marketplace is looking for.”

Bz:

Narrower vent walls also mean more squared edges, which are inherently worse in crashes than rounded edges. They’re more likely to stick or to get snagged and jerk helmet off your head leaving you with no protection, or to jerk your head around violently and increase rotational injuries.

This is also true of the “aero” tail on many helmets.

It seems that things done specifically to increase the value of a helmet too often create a less safe product, but are allowed in the name of higher marketability and profit.

CS:

What I would say about that is… I have not seen, I mean, I’ve seen anecdotal evidence and people’s comments about this. But, I have not seen any testing data that says that a helmet with edges on it of some kind, or aero helmets, are inherently less safe than a perfectly round helmet or something that exactly matches the curvature of your head.

It may very well be the case. But, again, I’ve seen no data that proves that, and I’m not aware of anybody who’s actually testing that.

Again, I’m not saying that it cannot very well be the case, but what I will say is that based on the overwhelming number of photographs and post-crash stories that I get from our customers – and I can only assume that other manufacturers get them from their customers – this phenomenon of an edge of a helmet or the sharp corner of a helmet or the aero tail of a time trial helmet specifically causing an injury to the rider, I haven’t seen a case of it.

So, what we could be talking about is a very real scenario, but one that is so unlikely in a real-world situation, that it makes it impractical to take into account when designing a helmet.

No helmet can protect a rider in every situation, due to speed, due to the angle of the impact, objects in the road, objects off the side of the road, the surface that the rider is riding on. There are too many variables to take into account to say that this helmet is going to protect the rider the best in every situation.

So, to look at a particular feature of a helmet, regardless of how commonly it’s used and say, ‘this is something that I’m concerned about,’ the chance of that being a problem in a real world situation – while existing – could be so remote that it’s not a concern that a manufacturer can or should consider.

Bz:

Could you address the issue of visors shattering, or the edges slicing riders’ faces, or snagging during a collision and violently jerking the riders’ head around and increasing rotational damage?

CS:

Again, hypothetical or anecdotal situations are always going to happen. I don’t know. You’ve got a segment of the market that wants a feature. And whether they are aware of the risks of that feature or not, in the case of a visor they want a visor on their helmet.

Obviously, the visors from Lazer, the visors from other manufacturers, are designed to withstand impact without shattering. I know that I’ve got a number of visors from our Oasis helmet, the all-mountain helmet I was telling you about, I can twist that visor 180 degrees and it’s not going to break, it’s not going to shatter. It may deform, but it’s not going to shatter. It’s not that fragile.

If you leave it out in the sun for five years and the UV rays cause the plastic to deteriorate, at that point it might shatter.”

Bz:

Does Lazer, or any manufacturer that you’re aware of, make a helmet that’s… maximally safe? Just, okay, here’s the absolute safest helmet you can buy. It may be ugly. It may not be stylish, but if this is what you want, here it is. Is that helmet out there?

CS:

Hmmmm. I can tell you on behalf of Lazer that we do not make a helmet that we specifically market like that. I can’t say that Lazer does not make that helmet, because we’re not testing the helmets to any kind of standard that says ‘this is the safest helmet.’ I don’t know what that test would look like.

I can tell you personally that I think the current drop tests are not satisfactory. But, I’m not an engineer, I would not be comfortable being responsible to design what I thought would be the ultimate helmet testing standard.

So, again, without some kind of benchmark to say, ‘Okay, this is the test that will determine what the safest bicycle helmet in the world is, I couldn’t identify which of our helmets, or any other manufacturer’s helmet, might meet that criteria.

Without discounting the fact that this helmet may not already exist and that Lazer may be making that helmet, without some kind of way to verify that in a reliable and clean testing situation, that’s not something I’d be able to determine.”

Bz:

You’ve told me that Lazer Sport manufactures its helmets in China, but some companies manufacture in Europe. Is there a difference in the quality of helmets manufactured in one place vs. the other?

CS:

My feeling is that the quality of manufacturing between China and Europe is about the same but the production costs in Europe are higher. So you can get the same quality helmet from a Chinese supplier for a more economical price. The quality of products coming from China has improved dramatically in the last ten years and Lazer has a very close relationship with our production facility which allows us to develop and incorporate new concepts and innovation into our helmets very quickly after design.”

Bz:

You’ve mentioned before that you’re not happy with the current testing standard. You mentioned that you aren’t happy with the drop test because it doesn’t match real world situations.

Does Lazer, or anyone, test more “real world?” Different angles? Skid? Just whatever might make the standard better?

CS:

When we design a helmet we’re designing it for the testing standard of that market [U.S., Australia, Europe – Bz]. We’re partnering with another organization which is using a different testing procedure. I might have alluded to that in the article that I referenced [on his own blog, here – Bz]. The organization is called MIPS. We are, I know that POC and maybe one other company which I’m not sure of [also are]. We are partnering with MIPS using a different testing procedure, in order to address what I feel are more real world conditions.”

Bz:

MIPS is not just a system, they’ve also modified the testing standard?

CS:

They’ve developed their own testing standard. It’s not a stationary helmet with an object coming into it, it’s not a stationary object with a helmet coming into it. They’re doing a more dynamic test to the helmet.”

Bz:

Is a helmet designed for one function, maybe mountain bike (MTB) riding, less safe if used for maybe road riding than a helmet made specifically for road riding?

CS:

Well, it depends.

One example is our high end Helium helmet, which we consider a road helmet, vs. our Oasiz MTB helmet or all-mountain helmet.

The Helium helmet, it’s the pinnacle of our line. It’s made using our most sophisticated manufacturing technology in order to make it as lightweight as possible.

Whereas the Oasiz helmet, it uses the same manufacturing process, but it’s a more significant helmet in that it’s meatier and there’s more material that comes down the back of the rider’s head. Because again, the demands of the market. Riders who are doing this all-mountain type of riding, they’re looking for a helmet that offers more protection down the back of the rider’s head and has more material that the helmet is built around.

Bz:

So there are features that make a helmet an MTB helmet or a road helmet?

CS:

There are features that we are offering in order to address the needs of the MTB market, or the road bike market.

But, what I’ll tell you is, like in the case of the Luna womens professional MTB team, we equip them all with the Helium helmet, because they want the super-light helmet

So, someone who’s looking for a type of helmet, whether or not at the end of the day it’s for the type of riding they’re doing, the crash that they actually might find themselves involved in, whether or not the Oasiz helmet is going to offer them more protection, there’s too many variables to take into account. But in the case of the all-mountain segment, A, B and C features are what those riders are looking for, so we incorporate those features into the helmet.”

Bz:

Ok, it’s based on rider preferences within a category. What MTB riders want in that line, what road riders want in that line.

How do you gather the information about what various types of riders want in which line or type of helmets?

CS:

We look at what – if it’s a new segment for us to get into – we look at what consumers are already buying in that segment, as far as the features that they’re looking for. Then we look at, okay, are there ways that we can improve upon those features, is there a way that we can offer the same protection with less material, to lighten up the overall weight of the helmet? Can we integrate our features and technologies that we use on our high-end helmets at a lower-price helmet and set our product apart from what the competition is doing, by a better fit or better airflow, better chin buckle, better visor.”

Bz:

Do you take feedback from the people and teams that you sponsor?

CS:

Absolutely.”

Bz:

I remember seeing a crash test comparison of a Smart car and a Toyota Corolla, at 70 mph into giant concrete blocks. The cages of both cars held up amazingly well.

But after showing us that, the host mentioned that it doesn’t matter how well the cage protects the body, the person inside the car in a 70-mph crash is still very likely to die from organ damage due to the forces involved in rapid deceleration.

Translating that to helmet design, it seems obvious that there’s only so much protection a helmet can offer. Most of us will never crash at 70 mph, but a combination of forces, especially for racers, could equal that.

What are the limits of helmet protection?

Does that $150 or $300 helmet protect significantly better than the $25 helmet?

I know there’s no standard scenario, so no standard maximum safe speed for helmet effectiveness, but can you give a range?

What is the upper limit of speed for impacts from the side? From the front? From the top? From the rear?

CS:

No. No. At the end of the day, no. There are too many variables to take into account to even to begin to guess at that.

Again, without any empirical data or any kind of reliable testing it would be irresponsible for anyone to make that kind of recommendation.

I can tell you that in a $25 helmet vs. a $300 helmet, there may some features built into that $300 helmet that might help improve the odds that the rider will escape from a crash unscathed, for instance the RBS, the Rigidity Brace System that we build into our higher-end helmets, and again that’s another component of that higher manufacturing technology. We can introduce more materials into the helmet when we’re building these multiple pieces. But, what the RBS is, it’s a skeleton that’s inside of the foam and in the event of an impact the skeleton helps keep the foam together and around the rider’s head. So if there are additional lower-speed impacts, the rider still has foam around their head and is offered that additional protection.

So, in our higher-end helmets we have that RBS that may offer that protection.

But again, there’s too many variables. Is the rider going to crash and land directly on their head? Are they going to crash and land on another body part that can cause rapid deceleration so that the rider’s head is hitting at a much lower speed? Is there an object in the road or off the side of the road that the rider’s head could hit?

Again, it’s impossible and in my opinion it would be irresponsible without a standard test, to say that ‘you can wear our helmet at speeds up to 50 mph and be assured that in the event of a crash you’re not going to have a problem.’

Because, honestly, you look at Natasha Richardson, the actress who was skiing on a bunny hill. She was standing still and fell over and had a traumatic brain injury and within… six hours? Eight hours? She was dead.

You can trip and land on the floor at almost zero miles an hour and suffer a significant brain injury that can cause death.

Bicycle helmets can help. They can offer considerable help depending upon the circumstances of the crash. But, at the end of the day there’s just too many variables to take into account to say that this helmet will offer protection up to speeds up to this amount.”

Bz:

As in the example they gave with that 70-mph car crash, where it didn’t matter how well the car cage protected the body, the organs inside could not survive, is there a point or a speed where it doesn’t matter how well the helmet protects the skull, the brain inside cannot survive?

At 30 mph? 50 mph? I don’t know…

CS:

I don’t know either. Because I’m not aware of any test that has defined that. Because ultimately what you’re talking about is the speed… it’s not the speed that your head hits the object, it’s the speed at which your brain hits the inside of the skull. Because that’s where the brain injury happens.

Your head can hit an object at whatever speed. But because your brain is not fixed to the inside of your head, there’s a delayed reaction between when your head hits the ground and when your brain decelerates by smashing into the skull.

You’re talking about survivability? It depends what part of the brain hits the inside of the skull. There’s certain parts of the brain that are more durable than others.”

Bz:

So it’s things like, do you hit directly or is it a glancing blow, is it a front impact, or on the side or back, not just how fast you’re going, that make a big difference?

CS:

Exactly.

Again, there’s too many variables to take into account. Because of what is happening – not just outside your head, but inside your head – in just fractions of a second, it can make a critical difference whether or not a head impact and injury is survivable or not.

I don’t know what the speed of Wouter Weylandt was in the Giro d’Italia when he crashed. I know that they were descending. From what I saw of that descent it didn’t look to be an extremely high-speed descent. If the speed was over 40 mph [64 kph – Bz] I would have been amazed. But, you hit your head in a particular way, it can be fatal, regardless of what you’ve got on your head.”

 

The following questions were submitted by @CycleGirl108, a friend on twitter, following several discussions we had concerning Wouter Weylandt’s crash at the Giro and Chris Horner’s and Tom Boonen’s crashes at the Tour. She knew we were doing this interview and has a keen interest in helmet safety and helmet advocacy. She emailed her questions to be posed to Chris Smith during the interview.

CG108:

They’ve used hard Styrofoam as the main cushion in helmets for 30 years; why not shift to gel or something with more give?

CS:

Good question. Why haven’t they?

I’d have to talk to my boss and the engineers.”

OFFICIAL EMAILED ANSWER:

Two reasons EPS foam is currently being used:

• It’s currently readily available and mass-produced, so it’s easy for manufacturers to obtain for a reasonable cost while still offering good protection for the rider’s head
• Gel and similar materials have been tested but the overall helmet weight when used with these materials has yielded unacceptable results.”

CG108:

Is it possible to have a helmet which grips the head directly, and doesn’t need a chin strap?

CS:

It is possible? Sure.

But that kind of flies in the face the rotational injury phenomenon. You actually need to have some kind of system for the helmet to move independent of the rider’s head.

Maybe you could do it. Maybe you could develop a system that grabs the rider’s head so tightly, but still allows the shell to move independent of that. I don’t know how comfortable that would be.

I think you could do it, but you’d sacrifice everything in the way of helmet comfort to achieve that.”

CG108:

I’ve been told that above a certain speed or impact pressure, the helmet may keep the skull intact, but brains inside will liquefy. True? That is, it will be like shaking a raw egg: Scrambled in the shell. If so, what speed?

CS:

‘Liquify’ is bit extreme, but it is true. I can’t assign a speed to that. Because it could happen at high speed, it could happen at low speed.

The speed of the rider and the speed of the bike has nothing to do with it. It’s the speed of the head, how and where it impacts whatever surface.

You can come off your bike at 70 mph but you may have decelerated to under 50 by the time your head hits the ground. Who knows, by what part of your body hits first.

But having said that, regardless of speed, yes, you can hit your head hard enough where you brain, because your brain is not fixed to the interior of your skull, you can hit your head hard enough that your brain will impact the inside of your skull and cause inter-cranial bleeding. That can be fatal, and quickly fatal.”

CG108:

The current standards call for protection when dropped from two meters onto an anvil. Isn’t that a lot slower than a typical rider goes? It seems to me that a recreational rider goes about 20 mph, which is quite a bit faster than a dropped helmet, so shouldn’t the standard be made higher?

CS:

Possibly. But, I can say that in the case of the testing standard, they take into account the fact that another portion of the rider’s body, more often than not, impacts the ground first, which causes rapid deceleration.

It’s very rare that the rider’s head hits first at full speed.

The testing standard was developed to account for, I think, 14 mph. Because that’s what they determined was the average crash speed when the head actually did have impact. So that was, for better or worse, whether you agree with it or not, that was taken into account when they designed the test.”

CG108:

Can helmets be improved to absorb more impact and protect wearers from falls at higher speeds, without making the helmets so cumbersome that bicyclists won’t wear them?

CS:

Can it be done? Mmmmmmmmm, anything can be done, depending on how much the consumer wants to spend.

If you have enough money to throw at a project, you can do just about anything. But, you’re going to price it out of the competitive market.”

CG108:

I understand that based on skull and brain physiology, it’s hard to protect the brain from sloshing inside the skull during a high-speed impact. Nevertheless, will it someday be possible for a helmet to protect more against concussion?

CS:

Concussion goes back to that rotational brain injury, which accounts for the overwhelming majority [of head injuries] in cycling and motorcycling. That’s what we’re trying to occomplish with the MIPS system.

One thing I’ll tell you, this is also becoming something that motorcycle helmet companies are taking seriously.

I don’t know if you’re aware, but Lazer started out as a motorcycle helmet manufacturing company.

Just about two years ago, based in Brussels, was a motorcycle and bicycle and air-sport [helmet] manufacturing company.

The managers of the bicycle division bought that division out.

Now, Lazer Helmets, based in Brussels, still makes motorcycle helmets. Lazer Sport, based in Antwerp, is the bicycle division.

So there still is a Lazer motorcycle helmet manufacturing company. And they have addressed this rotational brain injury phenomenon by coming up with a helmet with a feature called ‘super skin.’

Basically what this skin is, it’s like a scalp that’s applied to the outer portion of the helmet. If you think about it, your scalp is designed to prevent rotational brain injury.

So, at walking speeds, you trip and you fall, you hit your head. Your scalp, for just a fraction of a second, milliseconds, your scalp will adhere to whatever your head hits, just for that fraction of a second, and allow your skull to travel in it’s original direction. It’s just that few milliseconds of allowing the skull to continue in its original direction that can dramatically reduce rotational brain injury.

That’s the job of the scalp at a walking and running pace. You get on a 50 mph or 70 mph motorcycle, your scalp is obviously not up to that challenge. So what Lazer motorcycle helmets did, working with another independent group, they developed this ‘super skin’ technology which is basically a scalp that is attached, is bonded, to the outer surface of a motorcycle helmet.

If you grab one of these helmets and press your thumb on it, you can actually move the outer surface of the helmet versus the shell underneath it. It’s accomplishing the same goal. So, at 50, 60, 70 mph if you come off the motorcycle and you hit your head, for that millisecond, that super skin/scalp will adhere to the road and allow the rest of the helmet to continue in the original direction of travel.

Just that millisecond of energy absorption tested out to a dramatic reduction in the frequency and chance of rotational brain injury.”

Bz:

Is there any chance that we’ll see that on a bicycle helmet?

CS:

Well, maybe. We were pursuing that at a time when we were all one company.

The problem is, a motorcycle helmet that has that, you can’t have any air vents in it. It’s got to be one solid scalp surface for it to work.

We were looking at maybe offering a full-face DH [downhill – Bz] helmet without any vents that had that technology. But now that we’re different companies, I can’t speak to us using that technology in bicycle helmets.

With what MIPS is doing, it’s accomplishing the same thing, it’s just coming at it from a different direction. Instead of having something on the exterior of the helmet, we’re working with them to have this system on the interior of the helmet to accomplish the same goal”

CG108:

In discussions with friends, they ask why they should they bother with a helmet, if it won’t protect against concussion. I point out that your head is a really bad place on which to get road rash. Therefore it is equally important to have the helmet be sufficiently strong to protect the head when the rider falls. When Jens Voigt fell on live TV during the 2009 Tour de France, his helmet got mashed and mangled and scraped – but saved his head from receiving that damage. He still had a concussion, but he didn’t leave his brains out on the road, which would have happened if he hadn’t had the helmet on.

CS:

Yeah, absolutely! Again, time and time again, I get email stories and photographs from people who send me pictures of their smashed up helmet, overjoyed that their helmet did its job of protecting their head. Now, honestly, very few if any of these riders suffered a rotational brain injury. Because, that’s a fairly serious issue and they probably would have mentioned intercranial bleeding and having to go through a procedure fairly quickly that involves removing a part of the skull and allowing the brain to expand and swell into that area.

These are people who just hit their head in a straight line incident and didn’t have a brain injury. But, without that helmet, a skull fracture is serious business. Whether you have a brain injury or not, a fractured skull is a very, very significant injury. Bicycle helmets do a very good job preventing that injury.

If you’re only going to use a safety device because it will protect you against the most catastrophic injury that you can imagine, yeah, you may as well not use any safety device at all. But, if you use a safety device knowing that in a great number of situations this safety device is going to prevent injury, who wants to suffer? Who wants a skull fracture, road rash, skull abrasions, or all the different kinds of injuries that you can possibly get. Even facial injuries, a helmet is not going to protect facial injuries. But just the fact that it keeps your forehead elevated can help reduced facial and vision injuries.

So, there’s all kinds of different ways that a helmet can help, help keep the rider’s head safe, not taking into account the effects of rotational brain injury that make it absolutely worthwhile to wear a bike helmet every time you ride.”

 

Stay tuned for Part 2 of Bikezilla’s interiew with Chris Smith, coming up later this week.