After Wout van Aert suggested the idea of lower gearing on cycling’s WorldTour to improve safety during descents earlier this year, it looks like the UCI is now set to trial a maximum gearing rule at cycling’s highest level, which will begin on 1 August. First reported by Daniel Benson, this junior-style gear restriction caps riders at a 54×11 gear ratio on 700c wheels, and looks to be part of a broader push to improve safety by limiting top speeds. The rule hits SRAM-sponsored teams hardest, as their 10-tooth cog setup will exceed the new limit.
In 2023, the UCI launched SafeR, a framework aimed at improving safety across men’s and women’s road cycling. Earlier this year, we reported on Wout van Aert’s call for restricted gearing, arguing that limiting the peloton’s gear range could help reduce speeds on descents and “make the sport a lot safer.”
Just last week, the UCI introduced controversial new equipment regulations affecting handlebar width, rim height, and fork width, along with a promised review of helmet standards as part of a broader safety overhaul. Now, the governing body looks set to trial a “Maximum Gearing” Test Protocol which will come into play on the 1st August, across selected professional one-day and stage races. The limit will apply only to mass-start events, meaning individual and team time trials will remain unaffected.
While 53-tooth chainrings were once the standard in the pro peloton, rising speeds and increasingly aerodynamic equipment have pushed many riders toward larger setups in recent years.
As we noted ahead of the 2023 Tour de France, the typical chainset for flatter stages is now 54/40t. Larger chainrings are often considered more efficient which has led some riders to adopt 55-tooth rings. At the 2023 Omloop Het Nieuwsblad, Victor Campenaerts debuted a massive 62-tooth chainring, made possible by Classified’s PowerShift rear hub system.
This new rule marks the first technical gear limitation in modern professional cycling and will cap the distance covered per pedal revolution of 10.46 meters – effectively limiting riders to a maximum gear ratio of 54×11. It’s a return to youth-racing protocols, with the UCI saying that commissaires will inspect chainrings and verify cassette sizes before the start of races.
This limits the highest gear a rider can use, which means that pedalling speed (cadence) becomes more of a limiting factor than raw power when it comes to reaching top speed.
The goal is to reduce maximum speeds, based on the UCI’s conclusion that gearing may be contributing to excessive top speeds in certain race sections, particularly on descents. By limiting gearing, the aim is to slow riders down, particularly on downhill stretches. This change is unlikely to significantly affect sprint finishes, which, although fast, are rarely the absolute fastest parts of a race.
How it affects manufacturers
Though we’ve seen many riders mix and match larger chainrings from other brands on their bikes in recent years, Shimano, Campagnolo and FSA now all have maximum gear ratios of 54×11, meaning they are largely unaffected. However, the rule with significantly impact SRAM-sponsored teams, whose riders use a 10-tooth smallest cog on the rear cassette.
Under the new 10.46 metre cap, any combination exceeding 54×11 is now prohibited. This means SRAM riders using a 10-tooth cog will be limited to a maximum 49-tooth chainring, ruling out the 50T and 54T setups that are common in the pro peloton.
As a result, SRAM-sponsored teams will need to switch to 11-tooth cogs, downsize chainrings, or mechanically lock out their gearing before races. The rule could also signal the end of 1x drivetrain experimentation at the WorldTour level, given these systems rely heavily on wide-ranging cassettes.
To understand the impact, dropping one tooth on the cassette (e.g., from 11 to 10) typically requires increasing the chainring size by about three teeth to maintain a similar gear ratio — for example, a 54×10 setup roughly corresponds to a 57×11.
Shorter cranks?
In the last few years, a quiet revolution has been underway, as more and more people seem to be talking about crank length with bike fit experts recommending shorter cranks for many riders, and a growing number of professional riders now opting for 165mm cranks or even shorter. Jonas Vingegaard, for example, has been reported to use cranks as short as 150mm.
In the context of the UCI’s new gearing limits, shorter cranks don’t alter your actual gear ratio — a 54×11 remains a 54×11 whether you’re on 175mm or 165mm arms. However, shorter cranks reduce the size of the pedal circle, making it easier to sustain a higher cadence. In practice, that can allow riders to pedal faster before spinning out, effectively extending the usable range of their gearing.
So, will lower gearing make racing safer?
Will it work? That’s the big question. The idea is simple, cap gear ratios so that riders can’t pedal as fast on descents, but in practice it’s unclear how much impact this will really have.
Personally, I struggle to see how this will massively reduce maximum speeds and make a meaningful difference to safety. On descents, the real dangers come from high-speed cornering, poor marshalling, street furniture, bad weather and course design, not necessarily from riders spinning out at their top cadence.
> How to make your bike shift smoother
Even in sprint finishes, pro typically hit around 70km/h, which is achievable on a 54×11 at around 110rpm. If anything, this rule shifts the focus slightly toward positioning, lead-outs, and cadence efficiency – not a bad thing, necessarily, but not a safety revolution either.
While this decision is less baffling than introducing a 40cm minimum handlebar width (that some have slammed as ‘discriminatory’ against female riders), if the UCI is serious about making racing safer, greater focus should be placed on course planning, better crash response systems and clearer marshalling, to name a few, not just limiting equipment. For example, Tadej Pogačar pointed out that crashes have always been a part of cycling – and that, instead of focusing on reducing speeds, other measures can be emphasised to create a safer racing environment.
At the end of the season, SafeR will evaluate the trial and based on their review, a decision will be made on whether to implement permanent measures for future seasons. These could include setting maximum gear ratios, conducting further testing, or exploring alternative strategies to reduce speeds in specific race sections.
What do you think about this new ruling? Let us know in the comments section below.
32 thoughts on “UCI to trial maximum gearing rule — but will it really make racing safer?”
If the 10t cog goes, thats
If the 10t cog goes, thats going to get expensive for pros / semipros who buy their own gear as a Sram Red power meter chainring isnt exactly cheap.
“distance covered per pedal
“distance covered per pedal revolution” presumes the rolling circumference of a 28c is the same as a 32c, for example. does using a taller tyre mean you have to back the gearing ratio down?
the infamous grouse wrote:
Yes. Indeed, the exact same tyre will change in circumference as it wears. Very noticeable when I replace certain brands of tyres that have quite a thick centre rubber compound when new, when the old tyre was quite worn – you can definitely feel the change in gearing on a fixed-gear. See my other comment on how I’ve seen commissaires check the junior limit – much more foolproof way than what Road.CC is suggesting the UCI are going to do for this WT check (which could just be road.cc misunderstanding something).
I think the UCI are trying to
I think the UCI are trying to stop tyre sizes, er, ballooning – through an indirect method.
lesterama wrote:
maybe GCN will do a a fake science weight comparison of bigger tyre+54×12 vs smaller tyre+54×11
“cap the distance covered per
“cap the distance covered per pedal revolution of 10.46 meters – effectively limiting riders to a maximum gear ratio of 54×11. It’s a return to youth-racing protocols, with the UCI saying that commissaires will inspect chainrings and verify cassette sizes before the start of races. ”
I don’t know what they intend to do for this new adult regulation, but at races I’ve been at, the pedal revolution development for junior’s is checked by simply drawing 2 chalk lines on the road, set apart by the regulated distance. The bike is then put with the rear wheel on 1 line with the crank set at a recognisable angle (straight up) and the bike is then walked to the next line. As long as the crank has completed a revolution before the bike hits the 2nd line, it’s legal.
Easy way to check it, nearly impossible to get wrong – unlike counting sprockets and trying to calculate (you’d have to measure the tyre circumference too – different tyres can have different circumferences, and the same tyre will change circumference with wear).
If the thing that’s capped is
If the thing that’s capped is the distance travelled per pedal revolution, then the statement in the article “The rule could also signal the end of 1x drivetrain experimentation at the WorldTour level” doesn’t make sense. A 1x drivetrain with tiny sprockets should be fine, as long as the distance/pedal revolution number is OK
Yes but the point is that you
Yes but the point is that you couldn’t run the sort of setup that they run when they do 1x so when you remove that plus point there is little left.
henryb wrote:
Yes indeed. If the rule is just expressed as pedal development at the wheel, as it is for juniors, then it is not restricting the fine-details of the drive-train. Only the net, final effect. So if someone wants to run 1x, that’s fine, as long as the maximum development fits within the given distance.
Quote:
I, for one, would like to see a professional peleton all riding along on 65mm cranks
henryb wrote:
with all the youtube experts who claim crank length doesnt affect power, it should make for entertaining vox-popping.
Always thought a 10t sprocket
Always thought a 10t sprocket is silly 11’s pushing it, given I raced on a 53 c.ring usable of them would be easy up the block and then you’re looking towards small steps as per gear changes. The big push to 11 and then 10 sprockets came about from riders wanting to ride the big c.ring everywhere like the pros do cept average Joe ain’t got the legs to push a 52/53/54 everywhere so they introduced a 50t c.ring – easy, but ya couldn’t race that. Then you’ve an 11-28 cassette (let’s say 11spd) such has such a range of gears a TT’er would seem seek counselling of they HAD to ride that! Lots of different ideas abound in cycling now, to go on, tubeless, like WTF 😱 or even discs 🙄, who recalls the the Lightweight 70’/80’s bikes – think it’s time road cycling especially gets away from the stupid ideology and hits the middle line cause don’t cause some of the above are a joke to themselves…
Limiting gears to improve
Limiting gears to improve rider safety reminds me of introducing higher penalties in order to prevent crime: cheap but ineffective actionism that does nothing to improve on the actual problems.
I came out almost unhurt from a crash at 65kmh where there was nothing but a lawn next to the road but broke my collarbone at 40 kmh when I was dodged into a parked car.
Race safety is a very complex thing and if you look at when an where crashes happen it’s easy to identfy rider behaviour, road surface quality, road furniture, parked cars and course preparation (including marshalling) as factors that have a far bigger impact on safety than actual speeds. However controlling thes factors is far more expensive and complicated than limiting gears.
Also if the UCI were to reduce speeds it would probably be more effective to cancel out the last 20 years of innovation in aerodynamics (a horrible idea imho).
On another Note: 10t cogs are profoundly stupid and anyone outside the world of sponsored marginal gains who combines them with a large pulley cage on his/her own budget is making a fool of him/herself.
It’s a nonsense move that
It’s a nonsense move that creates more work for commissaires, makes the UCI look like meddling dinosaurs, does nothing at all for rider safety.
Rider safety is improved by more protection along the course.
I agree that the gear rules
I agree that the gear rules are not really going to help achieve the safety goals. I think the rule is mostly motivated by the UCI covering themselves for liability by being able to say that they’ve been trying to make improvements.
Your suggestion that the UCI should start making rules about “more protection along the course” is a non-starter because you would then either have nobody being able to afford to organize a UCI race anymore or only have races in the most boring places (e.g., flat desert roads in Saudi, away from the cities so that there’s no street furniture).
Chris RideFar wrote:
It’s not exactly a non-starter because keen watchers of pro road racing will have seen more and more soft barriers being erected on the outside of bends thought to be dangerous. The race organiser does have a duty of care towards riders if they’re offering rewards for racing along open roads. Crash protection has to be placed against street furniture and warnings given. Yes it’s expensive but it has to be done.
And there are quite a lot of early season Middle East races now…
“a 54×10 setup roughly
“a 54×10 setup roughly corresponds to a 57×11” – maybe the author should spend more time in their math(s) class: 11 * 54/10 = 59.4.
Apparently the author used the heuristic of adding 3 teeth to the chainring for every tooth lower on the cassette, but I’m not even sure where this would be valid. Using ratios and math is normally better than heuristics that are plucked out of nowhere.
Edit: The heuristic must be from 1x gravel gearing comparisons, because 42/11 is similar to 39/10. Definitely not a universally useful heuristic, unfortunately.
Chris RideFar wrote:
Not entirely sure what you’re talking about here, a 54×10 gear has a ratio of 0.185, a 57×11 gear has a ratio of 0.192, so they are within 3.6% of each other, which is close enough to claim it “roughly corresponds”, I would say (pretty close to the 2.3% difference between a 42/11 and 39/10 that you agree are similar).
If you talk about a gear
If you talk about a gear ratio of 54:10 = 0.185, then you’ve obviously got everything backwards because it’s 5.4 (54/10 not 10/54). 57/11 is 5.18 (not 0.192). Maybe 5.18 is “close enough” to 5.4 for you, but if someone is going to say “roughly 57” then they may as well say “roughly 59” and be more precise (becasue 5.36 IS close enough to 5.4 and you can’t get any closer).
I sorta support the premise
I sorta support the premise of these measures, but I suspect they will be found to be ineffective.
Safety, like it or not, is primarily dictated by the riders themselves. The more risks they take, the greater the aggression, the greater the risk of crashes… and vice versa.
Problem is, you are mixing young cock-sure men / women, with team / sponsor pressure in an increasingly cut-throat business. They are unlikely to make the right decisions by their own volition, and are very unlikely to be encouraged to make the right choices by their employers / managers.
Slowing the riders down may, and I mean may, mitigate against the seriousness of crashes to an extent, but I’d argue there will be more crashes overall, not less. By reducing top speed, you will also reduce the selectiveness of the course, bringing more riders into the equation, and increasing pressure on riders to push harder when it is possible to make a difference. If you can’t use gas, then you’ll use risk to make a selection.
I personally strongly advocate putting the pressure on to teams, by punishing riders and teams a lot more harshly when they are causing crashes. Bench riders for a month for serious safety breaches, longer if necessary, big fines, big in-race penalties. Make the managers push for safety.
I think the suggested rule is
I think the suggested rule is “distance covered per pedal revolution of 10.46 meters”. This will also need to factor in crank length and tyre size. Why not just define a gain ratio?
https://sheldonbrown.com/adv-cycling/gainratios.pdf
levestane wrote:
Because no-one has ever heard of gain ratio and no-one uses it. Development, despite sounding slightly alien to Anglo ears, is a useful way of defining a maximum gear because it completely avoids getting into details. If your bike moves forward more than 10.46 metres with one crank revolution, the UCI thinks your gear is too tall.
Miller wrote:
Explains a lot!
Crank length makes no
Crank length makes no difference – one revolution is one revolution, regardless of how long the crank is.
[Easily demonstrated by the fact that you could theoretically fit different length cranks left and right – the bike can’t go further on one side than the other…]
Reminds me of an explanation
Reminds me of an explanation of reverse swing bowling where the author managed to put that one side of the ball moves faster than the other !
(England being caned in the cricket at the mo).
Hirsute wrote:
But that is true for the surface of a spinning ball if the frame of reference is the air it’s moving through.
I’m not even sure the ball
I’m not even sure the ball has to be spinning as such, simply the movement through airflow of the ball the rough side vs the shiny side how the airflow reacts with it & the seam creates the swing.
Maybe it’s not aerodynamically correct to say one side travels faster as such, its simply one side creates more turbulence and turbulence creates drag, which alters the path of the ball in favour of the less turbulent side.
Correct, the rough side of
Correct, the rough side of the ball slows down the airflow on that side which means there is lower pressure to that side than to the shiny side and so the ball starts to move into the lower pressure area. Spin doesn’t actually help swing, the more upright you get the seam on the ball and the more you can have it hold its position throughout the delivery, the better chance of it swinging.
Yes, but Rahul will still
Yes, but Rahul will still drive it dismissively to the boundary either way.
Except the mechanical gain is
Except the mechanical gain is different, your foot travels different distances (force x distance = torque).
Yes, but the distance your
Yes, but the distance your foot travels isn’t part of the calculation – it’s rotations to distance travelled, and one rotation is still one rotation, regardless of how far the pedal/foot travels.
Ooh, proving with a simple
Ooh, proving with a simple thought experiment.