In November 2022 the UCI announced its latest update to the technical regulations that govern international cycle racing. The regulations [opens PDF], implemented on 1st January, 2023, included changes to permissible time-trial positions and minimum handlebar widths. Additionally, it was reported that the use of number pockets or pinless number systems – the likes of which produced by British brand NoPinz – were to be banned from mass-participation UCI events.
A similar move was announced in June 2022. CyclingTips reported that the UCI had ‘kindly requested’ teams refrain from using number pockets in the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift.
At the time it was reported that the UCI had not publicly communicated this ban, with the most public statement being made by British clothing manufacturer NoPinz. The relevant articles within the technical regulations relating to displaying numbers, which we have had confirmed by the UCI and have been in force since January 1, 2005, are:
- Article 1.3.029: “No item of clothing may hide the lettering on the jersey or the rider’s identification number, particularly in competition and at official ceremonies”.
- Article 1.3.076: “Riders shall ensure that their identification number is visible and legible at all times. The identification number shall be well fixed and may not be folded or altered”.
We’re no lawyers at Cyclist but quite clearly this wording alone does not specifically outlaw number pockets or state that pins must be used. However, in mid-December 2022, NoPinz – the company credited with first introducing the stick-on number pocket – based on direct and indirect communication they had received as part a UCI working group, informed their customers that the use of number pockets would not be allowed at any UCI-sanctioned bunch event.
Subsequently, the UCI has updated its Clarification Guide [opens PDF]. A UCI representative told us that ‘to bring consistency in the visibility of the identification number within UCI-sanctioned events, a clarification was made … to restrict the use of any outer layer textiles placed on top of riders’ identification numbers, where the use of such techniques is tolerated in Individual / Team / Mixed Time Trial events … While this clarification restricts the use of number pockets systems in mass events … it should be noted that they are still authorised for use in individual events.’
The UCI also, later, published a table outlining in which events number pockets could be used:
Storm in a pin cushion
From the outside and to a non-follower of the sport of cycling, a debate around whether a ‘pinless number system’ can be used in races might seem trivial. But ask any racing cyclist — professional or amateur alike — what is the single biggest nuisance about race day, and invariably the answer will be pinning numbers on to jerseys or skinsuits.
Every racer knows the angst of hastily pinning on a number before the start of a race. In some respects, it’s humbling that Geraint Thomas, as a Tour de France champion, must pin his numbers on like anyone else before taking to the line. However, in today’s reality, in which there is a need for ever more sustainability, pinning holes into expensive, non-recyclable cycling outfits really ought to be done away with.
During 2022, there was a total of 889 domestic road races which offered up results on British Cycling, from elite down to juniors (though it must be pointed out that British Cycling has said it will only enforce the rule at UCI-sanctioned events. Nonetheless it stands as an example of the scale of the ‘pindemic’). If we consider that each rider will require eight pins, and we take an average of 30 riders per race, the number of pins pinned will be over 200,000.
Of course, this is very much a guesstimate; pins can be re-used, some races will have fewer riders, some will have more, some will use other adhesive means to pin on their numbers. But in any case, it’s still a very large number of pins required, when there’s perfectly viable, less wasteful alternatives. Not only this, but any racing cyclist will also be familiar with the anguish of deliberately poking holes in some of the most expensive garments they own; by not using pins it’s possible to extend the life of costly racing clothing.
Indeed, speaking with NoPinz founder Blake Pond and Gary Chambers, the company’s sales director, we were told, ‘We were getting so many messages saying this such a step back and asking if we can lobby the UCI from a sustainability angle,’ says Blake. ‘People are telling us that their skinsuits last twice as long as they used to because they aren’t being shredded by pins.’
We spoke with NoPinz, the company that set off this chain of events, about how the situation unfolded and how progress is going towards a universally acceptable pinless number system.
Spoiler alert: with 16 different, competing manufacturers attending the UCI-led working group sessions, you can probably already imagine which way the answer is going to go.
Ready, pin, go!
‘Off the bat it’s been quite a frustrating process for us,’ says Blake. ‘Even as a member of the UCI’s working group, the message from the UCI has been really unclear. The initial way they said it was “number pockets cannot be used in WorldTour events in 2023”. They were taking the same stance as they did in 2022 for the Tour de France, when they said number pockets weren’t allowed and all teams should respect that. But they didn’t actually update the rules, they just said that.’
Other than information reported by NoPinz or by appropriately connected Twitter accounts, there’s been little communication from the UCI themselves on what their position is, particularly for amateur racers.
NEW UCI RULES! 📢
— Benji Naesen (@BenjiNaesen) November 29, 2022
– Pinless number pockets banned from road races, allowed in ITTs & TTTs.
– 15 m distance between ITT rider & the support car behind the rider to limit aerodynamic advantage. (from Jan 1st, cc @realBertBlocken)
– New TT bike dimensions. ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/I8eL9MQzVK
‘That’s the overarching issue,’ says Gary. ‘For amateur riders it’s not in the regulations. If an amateur rider seeks out the regulations as a guide for what they can and can’t do, there’s nothing in there to say you can’t wear a pinless number system [the clarification guide has since made this clear]. So, they might turn up at an event with a number pocket and get turned away. I think that’s really poor, and the UCI really doesn’t consider beyond the World Tour teams.’
Blake agrees, adding, ‘To be honest, I don’t think they’ve understood the impact it has on the amateur riders, I think [the UCI] just thought it only affects the WorldTour, it’s only the World Tour guys using them, so it won’t cause any trouble for us.’
Seemingly, the fact that number pockets are not prohibited by the UCI’s technical regulations has been confirmed by the UCI, through email communications to the manufacturers, but nonetheless they are still banned.
For Blake: ‘It comes down to [the UCI] just not being in touch with the grassroots or the lower tiers of the sport.’
A hard-working group
The number-pocket working group first met in around August 2022. The meetings are chaired by the UCI. Originally there were six key manufacturers, in later meetings this has expanded to 16 manufacturers and the World Federation of Sporting Goods Industry. ‘It was in the first meeting that [the UCI] said you should not include integrated number systems for World Tour events,’ says Blake. ‘They weren’t clear about amateur events, they kept saying it was for the World Tour, because the commissaires are struggling to see the numbers … But subsequently we were informed it would be all UCI events, including the UCI’s Gran Fondo World Series [an international event for amateur racers, attended by thousands globally].’
Since August, through the working group’s meetings and emails, ‘We tried to seek clarification,’ says Blake. ‘I only found out that the ban would extend further than the WorldTour after someone sent me a screenshot of a slide from a PowerPoint presentation, saying ‘in all UCI events, other than single-person events (ie, time-trials), pinless number systems are banned.’
This was a separate meeting, which we weren’t privy to despite being part of the working group for a pinless number system. It was more for the equipment manufacturers, such as Shimano. It’s only because someone sent it to me and asked if I was aware they were banning it for everything that I learned about it.”
It was from this point that, as a company, NoPinz started to consider whether it would need to inform its customers. ‘We started getting floods of emails from customers asking if [number pockets] are banned,’ recalls Blake. ‘I emailed Mick Rogers (the UCI’s Head of Road and Innovation) and have not had a reply. I emailed other contacts we have at the UCI and got no reply. In the end we just had to take a decision and say, “Look guys, what we know at the moment is that’s it going to be banned.” We didn’t want people to start receiving their orders and then find out they can’t wear their skinsuits. Because the only people that come out looking bad from that is us, as we’ve been saying it doesn’t affect you, it’s only for the WorldTour.’
Overall, says Blake, ‘It’s just been a really confused, unclear message.’
(Since speaking with Blake, he has received a reply from the UCI confirming the position they suspected).
How many cycling-clothing manufacturers does it take to develop a pinless number system that already exists?
At least 16, apparently. From simply hearing that there are 16 collaborators plus the UCI involved in re-inventing a pinless number system it seems quite likely it’s difficult to get anyone to agree.
A thought which Blake confirms: ‘[The working group] seems a bit forlorn. It’s not progressing well. The last two meetings have been arguments really. What they’re trying to do is get every manufacturer to collaborate to develop a number pocket that we’re all happy with, and we all say we’ll use as the standard in the implementation of our products.’
‘I said in one of the meetings that our products are transparent, so what’s the problem? Then you’ll get someone from one of the other manufacturers saying, “Yeah, but it’s too heavy.” And I’ll have to say that no one is telling you how heavy it has to be, it’s about how transparent it is. You end up just sitting there scratching your head.’
There is another issue for NoPinz, which has registered patents for number pockets intended for cycle racing. In Blake’s view, they’re ‘essentially, being asked to exchange information and help our competitors develop a pocket that is see-through when we’ve already got one’.
The NoPinz patent covers :
- ‘Clear plastic wallet/pouch with incorporated exterior entry top flap within which the number can be placed.’
- ‘Clear plastic wallet/pouch (no flap) sealed and closed on the exterior but with a slot in the actual garment behind the place wall/pouch tailored into the garment which is used to insert the number.’
- ‘For the avoidance of doubt this invention consists of a complete Lycra type sports garment including the wallet/pouch as part of the design, and a retro fit wall/pouch which can be fitted to a garment after manufacture.’
‘Before the last working group meeting, I re-iterated the message to Mick Rogers and his team, that I think we should have a test, like you would with frames or wheels; you can measure if something is transparent. The onus should be on the supplier to provide you with the information that says this is transparent and isn’t reflective. If they can provide that information, you can let people do what they want to do. I’ve still had no reply on that email.
‘In the working group meeting, the UCI is saying that puts a lot of responsibility on the commissaires, but I disagree. We’re saying you send off your product to someone impartial to test it, and as long as you meet the requirements you can get it approved. But the UCI seem to be against this and instead want to develop a standard that everyone can use, which seems stupid.’
In April 2023, a UCI representative informed Cyclist that ‘with a view to collectively developing a new standard, the UCI has initiated meetings with the cycling garment industry on this topic and discussions are ongoing.’
The road to pinless
Tracking back, to many younger racers the idea that there was no alternative to pinning a number onto your jersey could seem bizarre. It is a story that makes the current situation all the more frustrating for a company founded on the principle of ‘no pins’. ‘When we originally invented the number pocket in 2013,’ says Blake, ‘we went to the UCI and sought approval for it to be used. We had WorldTour teams interested in using it, but they weren’t sure if they would be allowed to. We went through an approval process [with the UCI]. We sent them samples and they said from their perspective it was absolutely fine to be used. At this time, we were concentrating on time-trials, we weren’t really doing it for road racing then.’
Eventually, the fledgling brand was able to get its first product, the SpeedPocket, approved, and it was used in the 2014 Tour de France for the first time on the WorldTour stage. ‘We were all good for the first 18 months or so,’ recounts Blake, ‘then we had our first run-in with the UCI over the pockets.’
Imitators began to appear within the peloton, with some being more effective than others at enabling commissaires to be able to identify riders.
‘Sponsored teams started saying to their kit providers that they needed number pockets on their suits; so, the manufacturers have just added something to them. They thought it doesn’t really matter whether you can see it or not because at WorldTour events they’re using timing chips. But we’ve pointed out not every race does. For amateur races, timing systems aren’t being used.’
‘[These brands] hadn’t gone to the UCI and sought approval like we had,’ says Blake, ‘so the UCI seemed to presume it was us. There was news, that came through to me from Australian Cycling, who we were supporting with number pockets, that [number pockets] were going to be banned.’
Blake got back in contact with the UCI. ‘We went through a whole process of proving that with our pocket you could clearly see the numbers, light wasn’t impaired, and they could actually be better because it was a more consistent location,’ Blake tells us. ‘[The UCI],’ he says, ‘accepted that everything with our pocket was fine and in the subsequent rule book they said with that “the NoPinz number system (or similar) was approved for use”.’
‘It’s the leaving the gates open with the “or similar” that allowed other brands to release copy after copy of our number pockets. There’ve been attempts to circumvent our patents by using different material, like meshes and generally things you can’t see through. And now we’ve come to this point where, in WorldTour races, you’ve got guys riding around with pockets with black meshes you can’t see through. We’ve had correspondence with loads of brands. Some of it in a friendly way, some of it not. We’ve had lawsuits with brands, which we’ve won.’
‘The thing for us, our business isn’t just the number pockets anymore. Three or four years ago, we’d have said “shit, this could end our business” but now we’re known as much for our aero clothing and our club kit. But the business is called NoPinz because that’s where we started. It has been more disruptive for us, and I just feel for our customers really, who are trying to find out whether they can or can’t have a number pocket. Most people really want one for ease of use and it prolongs the life of the kit. And we’re having to tell them one minute they’re banned and the next they’re not. It’s just frustrating.’
Alternative systems
Various brands have dabbled in pinless number systems. Rapha’s since-discontinued Crit Collection featured number pockets, Castelli has offered select products with them, while Santini’s custom clothing service has offered at least one skinsuit fitted with a Nopinz pocket installed.
‘We do license out our pocket,’ says Nopinz. ‘We’ve got a number of other suppliers in the working group already with licence agreements with us. They buy these regularly for the TT suits. So, it’s not even like we are trying to stop other people using our technology. We’re not trying to stop that. But we, as the original developer of the product and owners of the patent, don’t just want to give that away.’
Enjoy arbitrary rules? Read our guide to the UCI weight limit.