SRAM has launched legal proceedings against the UCI over the governing body’s proposed gear restriction regulations, which the component manufacturer says will unfairly impact and penalise the brand’s riders and teams, without increasing safety during races.
The complaint, targeting the maximum gearing rule set to be trialled at next month’s Tour of Guangxi, was filed with the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), on the grounds that the protocol was adopted by the UCI without consultation, transparency, or any safety justification, will disadvantages SRAM-equipped riders in races, and distorts the drivetrain market, violating EU competition law.
After reviewing SRAM’s complaint, the BCA initiated formal anti-trust proceedings under EU and Belgian competition laws earlier this week.
The Prosecutor General of the BCA will now conduct an investigation and present their findings to the BCA’s impartial decision-making body for an ultimate ruling, which may have serious implications for the relationship between cycling’s governing body and the bike industry.
What’s SRAM’s case all about?
SRAM’s decision to take the UCI to court escalates a row that has been bubbling for months, ever since the governing body announced in June that it was planning to introduce a raft of equipment changes, including a maximum gearing rule, ostensibly to deal with the “safety implications” of the increasing speed of professional races.
The new rules – most of which are set to come into effect from next January – will see time trial helmets banned in road races, a maximum rim height set, a new fork width limit introduced, and, most controversially, the implementation of a new minimum handlebar width of 400mm.
The governing body also announced in June that it will trial a new maximum gearing rule at the Tour of Guangxi in China in October, in another attempt to limit top speeds in the peloton.
> UCI to trial maximum gearing rule — but will it really make racing safer?
This new rule, a variation on the old junior gears system, marks the first technical gear limitation in modern professional cycling and will cap the distance covered per pedal revolution to 10.46 meters – effectively limiting riders to a maximum gear ratio of 54×11 on 700c wheels.
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 will be largely unaffected by the rule.

However, the trial system will 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, and the 54×10 configuration favoured by many of SRAM’s professional teams.
While the gearing trial at the Tour of Guangxi, which the UCI says will involve commissaires inspecting chainrings and verifying cassette sizes before the start of stages, comes after calls for restricted junior-style gearing by the likes of Wout van Aert, the news has been widely criticised by riders and coaches.
Last month, Tom Pidcock claimed that limiting gears would only make the sport more dangerous by crowding the road on descents, while Dan Bigham claimed at the Tour de France that “restricting gear ratios simply distracts from making meaningful changes to rider safety”.
“From my analysis, for reducing ratios to have an impact, we need to presume professionals would adhere to unrealistic cadence limits that aren’t supported by the literature,” the British aerodynamics expert, who now works for SRAM-equipped Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe, said in July.
“It’ll impact on as little as 0.01 per cent of a race and will arguably reduce speeds by no more than 0.5kph. All of this to change entire groupset design? It really doesn’t seem effective to me.”

And now, as it launches its legal action, SRAM is calling for the immediate suspension of the UCI’s gearing restrictions, preventing it from being trialled in China or any other future races, claiming the rules “hinder innovation, limit rider choice, and unfairly disadvantage SRAM riders and SRAM”.
According to the components brand, the maximum gearing protocol was also “adopted without consultation or transparency and lacks supporting empirical evidence, and any safety justification”.
And along with disadvantaging SRAM-using riders, the company says the rule “distorts competition in the road drivetrain market by limiting choice for professional teams and ultimately consumers, as SRAM relies on top-level teams to use and market its products”.
A spokesperson for SRAM has said today that the brand “made multiple attempts” to engage the UCI and raises it concerns about the trial in good faith, claiming the governing body’s leadership “declined to engage in meaningful dialogue regarding the rule’s validity or its basis”.
“While SRAM continues to participate in technical discussions to help teams comply with the restrictions at the announced gearing-restricted race, the lack of transparency and collaboration left legal action as the only remaining path forward,” the spokesperson said.
“This protocol penalises and discourages innovation and puts our riders and teams at a competitive disadvantage,” SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg said in a statement.
“We could not have imagined the drivetrains of today when SRAM was founded nearly 40 years ago, and we know the drivetrains of the next decade will continue to evolve. We rely on the sport’s governing body to foster an environment that encourages innovation for the benefit of riders and racers today, and riders in the future.
“We also rely on the governing body to make science-based, impactful changes for rider safety. We are the harshest critics of our own equipment that is raced and ridden around the world; safety is paramount to us.”
Reputational damage and no safety improvements?
While the Tour of Guangxi trial remains, in the UCI’s words, a “test”, SRAM claims its introduction has already caused “tangible harm”, with the brand’s gearing being publicly labelled as non-compliant, “creating reputational damage, market confusion, team and athlete anxiety, and potential legal exposure”.
The brand added that the public furore surrounding the rules may have already led potential customers to view SRAM’s gearing as “illegal”, exposing the company to “reputational harm and potential liability”, while if the trial is made permanent, retailers and bike manufacturers may abandon SRAM products, harming their position in the industry.
SRAM also claimed that if the gearing restriction is not lifted, racers using unmodified SRAM drivetrains risk disqualification and financial penalties, impacting race results and potential sponsorship opportunities for teams.
The company noted that its teams have not been able to adequately test limiting gearing, putting them in unnecessary risk.
Meanwhile, the brand says the UCI’s indication that additional trials may follow after the Tour of Guangxi has led to a “state of uncertainty” for its teams.
“Calling it a test doesn’t make it any less of a race,” Lousberg continued. “All riders on the start line should be able to compete on equal footing.
“Right now, SRAM-equipped teams will have to race at a disadvantage on compromised equipment with a reduced number of gearing options compared to their competitors. It’s also not clear what is being tested.”
SRAM and Lousberg have also criticised the UCI’s framing of the gear restrictions as a safety initiative, despite, they say, no evidence being presented to back up such claims.
“SRAM’s analysis of crash data from the 2025 Tour de France, using telemetry and footage, found no correlation between higher rollout configurations and crash risk,” the company said. “Crashes on descents were rare and occurred at speeds achievable on gearing configurations from all suppliers for WorldTour teams.”
Lousberg added: “If you talk to riders across the sport, they are asking for safer races, for better course designs.
“There are things we as a collective can do to help make races safer, but arbitrarily restricting a gearing choice – a gearing choice that only we provide to our teams – is fundamentally unfair to teams, riders, and SRAM.”
As part of its complaint, SRAM has also called for representation for bike and equipment manufacturers on the board responsible for equipment rulings and changes at the UCI, and the establishment of internal procedures that will ensure future UCI regulatory efforts comply with EU competition law.
“We’re proud of the position we’ve earned in the market over nearly four decades,” Lousberg said. “It’s not something we’re willing to relinquish because of arbitrary drivetrain restrictions imposed by a governing body – and we won’t back down without making our case.
“Today, the UCI’s actions unjustly penalise SRAM riders and SRAM. But given the way the governing body makes its decisions – decisions such as handlebar width, rim depth, the recent transponder implementation, and penalisation of teams in Romandie… even sock height – it’s impossible to know who may be impacted in the future.
“Through this process we hope to create a more transparent and collaborative climate for teams and component suppliers that ultimately leads to a better and safer sport for all.”
In a letter to SRAM riders, teams, and industry partners, Lousberg added that the legal action aims to “protect the right to compete on equal footing” and to ensure that the cycling industry is viewed as a core stakeholder by the UCI, with an equal voice when it comes to big decisions.
“We know this rule has already caused confusion, anxiety, and disruption. We’re working hard to resolve it quickly and transparently,” the CEO concluded.
“Our commitment to rider safety, performance, and innovation remains unchanged. We believe the future of cycling should be shaped by collaboration and partnership, not exclusion and intimidation.”

24 thoughts on “SRAM launches legal action against UCI over “fundamentally unfair” gear restriction trial, accusing governing body of inflicting “reputational harm” and “stifling innovation” – without “any safety justification””
Well this was coming waaay
Well this was coming waaay back when it was announced… 🤔
Bugger.
Bugger.
So what’s stopping people
So what’s stopping people with current SRAM 54/10 setups just replacing their current 10T cog on the back with an 11T? Sure someone can explain why this would be a big deal, superficially it doesn’t appear to require a “change to entire groupset design”.
Sram only makes cassettes
Sram only makes cassettes that start at 10 teeth for its AXS groupsets so it must either redesign these or the riders must block off the 10 tooth sprocket and ride it as an 11 speed.
OK, so they’ll have to start
OK, so they’ll have to start making 11T ones (not even new cassettes, just a new smallest cog) – not exactly a “change to entire groupset design”, is it?
How is it not a new cassette,
How is it not a new cassette, are you suggesting they go 11, 11, 12, 13, etc?
Not being a production engineer I’m not sure how difficult it would be for them but I would expect that even if it could be done it would require many thousands of miles of testing to ensure it worked correctly.
Backladder wrote:
SRAM RED cassettes (I’ve just discovered) are machined from a solid block of steel, so it literally would be a matter of pressing a few buttons to instruct the cutter to start with an 11-tooth cog rather than a 10 and change the numbers accordingly from there. I’m not a production engineer either but I refuse to believe that it would take thousands of miles of testing to check it would work, it already does work when the rider is in the 11T cog, the gap in the middle (currently between 17 and 19 on a 10-28T cassette) would be moved a bit higher up the block maybe.
It’s very rarely just “a
It’s very rarely just “a matter of pressing a few buttons”, there could be a dozen different CNC machines that perform a specific operation on each cassette as it goes through production, each of these will need precise calibration, new instructions, new CAD files to be developed etc, a not insignificant investment just to aid a largely pointless UCI ruling
Nick T wrote:
That is only currently a test so if it fails to slow the peloton then the UCI will probably abandon it leaving SRAM out of pocket.
*Literally* doing some heavy
*Literally* doing some heavy lifting here…
This is similar to people at work telling me to ‘just open the firewall’…
SRAM’s high end cassettes are
SRAM’s high end cassettes are milled from a single block of metal so a CAD redesign and factory retooling will be required to create a new range of 11-xx cassettes. They’ve also invested heavily in their proprietary XDR freehub design for no reason other than to allow fitting of the smaller diameter 10t cog.
Nick T wrote:
CAD redesign yes, retooling I wouldn’t think so, it wouldn’t be asking the cutter to go outside the parameters within which it already works. According to my resident expert (Mrs H, who teaches CAD as part of DT) it would take “a couple of hours tops” to reconfigure the CAD program and the cutter wouldn’t need any modification. I suspect this whole storm in a teacup is more about SRAM not wanting to give up their USP than any real problems they would have complying.
It won’t be just one CNC
It won’t be just one CNC “cutter” that produces a cassette, there will be one for the tooth profile, another to separate the cogs, another to hollow out the back, one to profile the ramps etc etc. and they likely have one of each machine for each cassette size at a minimum. They could double the operation size to include 11t cassettes, with the extra machinery and staff and factory space and costs associated with that, or they could retool and drop 10t completely. Then XDR becomes obsolete and the 170+ wheel companies who have paid to licence the design will wonder why they bothered. There’s no real business case for any of it, simply to meet a somewhat arbitrary “safety” rule from the UCI
Not wanting to diss Mrs H,
Not wanting to diss Mrs H, there is an old saying “Those who can do, those who can’t teach”. Having worked in a CAD office it would take more than a couple of hours to decide what to do at the other end of the cassette, it would probably feel uneven if they just extended the one tooth gap without considering the other cogs gaps, then you have to work out where the ramps should go to allow multiple shifts smoothly, there is also the FEA to see how much extra weight they have to add to make it stiff enough plus other things I haven’t thought about yet, and that is why it will need testing on the road at the end of all this.
Backladder wrote:
Well you are dissing her and that’s a stupid, stupid phrase that is offensive to all teachers – ever considered who taught these “people who can do”? However, no matter. Are you really saying it would make that much difference to feel, weight or required stiffness if you changed a cassette from its current (SRAM RED 10-28) 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,24,28 to 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21,24,28?
I said I didn’t want to diss
I said I didn’t want to diss her but you dragged her into this discussion 😉 I know who taught these people but just like your driving licence only says you have reached the minimum standard to drive unsupervised, academic qualifications are usually only an indication that you can learn to do the job, mainly because they are too genralized for todays very specialized work and I don’t see any way of doing it differently. Yes I am saying that just extending the 1 tooth jumps is a bad idea because 10 to 11 is a 10% jump but by the time you get to 18 to 19 it is only a 5.5% jump and would hardly be noticeable while riding so you are probably better going to18 to 20. But that is only my opinion, the pro riders might have different ideas and it would be silly not to at least ask them their thoughts.
Backladder wrote:
I can assure you that I notice when there is a 5.5% jump, if it’s “hardly noticeable” why do they currently bother with the 5.9% of 16 to 17, surely that’s “hardly noticeable” too? In my example riders would be using exactly the gears they have already except the highest gear would have been removed by regulation and they would have a bonus extra gear in the middle of the block.
I didn’t say it was not
I didn’t say it was not noticeable but when racing I already feel that the 16 to 17 change does not make a significant difference and I would prefer 16 to 18, with the lower gears moved as appropriate. By the time I get to that part of the cassette I am already going uphill and prefer to be able to reduce the gearing quicker. Of course it doesn’t really matter at my level of racing which is why I suggested that the pros should be consulted.
Backladder wrote:
They do produce a 12 speed cassette with a 11 tooth minimum https://www.sigmasports.com/item/SRAM/Apex-D1-XPLR-1231-12-Speed-Cassette/10RAL
Admittedly it’s in the Apex range. Although I thought all SRAM components were interchangeable, I’m not entirely sure if that applies down to Apex
It may be compatible if you
It may be compatible if you are using 1x but how many of the riders would be happy with that?
Apex uses a Shimano HG
Apex uses a Shimano HG compatible cassette, which all SRAM groupsets did before 10t. The developed XDR for new AXS so wheelsets will require the freehub body to be replaced with Shimano’s standard if you want to run Apex
The cassette argument is all
The cassette argument is all a bit academic anyway, when SRAM teams can simply fit the 48/35 chainrings and be within the ruling. This is what SRAM did initially, and Campagnolo with their first Wireless 12 speed, and limited the chainring options to compact sizes. Pro riders didn’t like it however, and both companies had to backtrack on that. I suppose this would be one backtrack too many for SRAM. When they first launched 10t it was intended to be a panacaea of sorts, high enough gearing for the pros on compact chainrings and all the range of a compact for consumers, with reduced options needed for components that cost money to manufacture.
Or indeed put a 49 chainring
Or indeed put a 49 chainring on and get exactly the same top gear as the 54/11 boys (well, 4.9:1 compared to 4.909:1, close enough). Surely that at least wouldn’t require all the major retooling etc I’ve been told about below, given that they already make 48T and 50T?
The problem is that the
The problem is that the riders very much dislike compact/sub compact chainsets