The UCI says it is “puzzled” by the legal action filed by components giant SRAM over the proposed trial of restrictive gearing at the Tour of Guangxi.
The UCI’s proposed restrictions mean riders using a SRAM drivetrain will be restricted to using a 49-tooth chain ring, compared to the 54 tooth chain rings commonly used by other major manufacturers. The measures were announced alongside a raft of other controversial measures intended to improve rider safety. But whilst the other measures will take effect in January, the restricted gearing is to be trialled first and then considered following feedback.
> SRAM launches legal action against UCI over “fundamentally unfair” gear restriction trial
In its filing to the Belgian Competition Authority, SRAM said the new rules “hinder innovation, limit rider choice, and unfairly disadvantage SRAM riders and SRAM”, adding that even the announcement of the trial had caused “tangible harm” to the brand by causing reputational damage, market confusion, team and athlete anxiety, and potential legal exposure”.
But in a press release, cycling’s governing body said it was “puzzled by the issuance of the Belgian Competition Authority’s press release before the UCI has even been served with the complaint and by the obvious inaccuracies contained in this statement.”
“In particular, the statement does not reflect the fact that the UCI has publicly indicated that it will consider the findings of this test before considering if further tests are relevant in 2026. Only then, would the UCI potentially consider any changes to the regulations.
“Even more surprisingly, the release does not even deem it necessary to indicate that the test that will be conducted by the UCI is aimed at exploring measures aimed at increasing rider safety, which is a fundamental prerogative of all sport governing bodies.”
In a closing riposte, the UCI also insisted it was confident that it’s safety measures were fully compliant with European and Belgian law adding, “It is not the role of competition law to lead to a ‘levelling down’ in regulatory and safety standards.”
To further clear matters, four and a half hours after that statement, the UCI sent out a second press release in direct response to SRAM’s press release released to accompany the legal action filed with the Belgian Competition Authority. In that statement, the UCI reiterated that the trial had been devised based on the “expressed support” of a majority of riders “for testing maximum gear ratio limits”.
“However, the UCI questions SRAM’s objectives in opposing a test designed to assess the relevance of a safety enhancement measure, thereby undermining the necessary unity among cycling stakeholders, which is essential for progress toward a safer sport.”
Besides SRAM’s public fallout with the UCI, the restricted gear trial has already come under criticism from several sources, with Red Bull – Bora’s Performance Engineer Dan Bigham saying the measure “simply distracts from making meaningful changes to rider safety”. Red Bull are amongst four men’s World Tour teams who use SRAM groupsets and will be affected by the proposed trial.
The Tour of Guangxi is the final World Tour race of the season and will get underway on the 14th October. With the UCI likely to appeal any unwanted verdict, it is unlikely there will be a final resolution before that point.
17 thoughts on “UCI “puzzled” by SRAM’s restricted gearing legal fight”
I’m sure SRAM are enjoying
I’m sure SRAM are enjoying all the publicity being generated by their action. It’s no doubt far less expensive than an advertising campaign
It’s that hard for SRAM to
It’s that hard for SRAM to supply 49 rings or is this them ‘moaning’ about it.. 🙄
Seems like it would be even
Seems like it would be even easier, and make no meaningful difference to the impact, for the UCI to simply tweak the limit to allow 50×11. 🤷♂️
Do you mean 50×10 or am I
Do you mean 50×10 or am I missing a joke?
Doh – yes, I meant 50×10.
Doh – yes, I meant 50×10.
And a fair point although to
And a fair point although to have a completely level playing field you’d have to say to the 54/11 manufacturers okay you can have 55/11 then and everyone’s got a 5:1 high gear. Considering the minuscule difference this rule will make to safety anyway I can’t really see one extra tooth making a penn’orth’s difference.
I’m sure it’s been
I’m sure it’s been scientifically proven that 55×11 is 94% more dangerous than 54×11. I look forward to seeing the UCI’s evidence base for it.
You are proposing that
You are proposing that instead of the smaller brand who supplies a few teams needing to make a small number of 49-tooth rings; the bigger brand who supplies the vast majority should instead make a much larger number of 55-tooth rings? That approach seems far less logical to me. SRAM are the ones doing something non-standard by using the 10-tooth cog on a road setup, so it’s not a bad idea that they are the ones that need to change the most to conform. (BTW, I don’t condone the rule, but if the rule is to exist, then making life easy for SRAM should not be a factor in how it’s implemented).
The others wouldn’t have to
The others wouldn’t have to make 55-tooth rings. They would just have the option to if they wanted to, because the rule is expressed in
gear inchesmeters of development, so by allowing 50×10 they would automatically be allowing 55×11 as well.But what size of tyre is that
But what size of tyre is that based on, what if I want to use a bigger tyre, can I have it measured with a lower tyre pressure and then pump it up just before the race? The whole thing seems like a can of worms to me!
Looking at it, they don’t
Looking at it, they don’t care about tyres – it assumes an idealised 28mm tyre. The actual wording is
and it then gives a bunch of examples with larger tyres where the actual development is higher. So in effect the gear development is actually irrelevant, and they could have just said ‘an equivalent of 54×11’. Or to keep everyone happy they could have just said ‘an equivalent of 55×11’.
The gear restriction is a
The gear restriction is a nonsense move. I can’t see it making the slightest difference to speeds, riders will simply up their cadence for the limited amount of time they’re in their maximum gear, professionals being good at pedalling.
These equipment rule changes will make zero difference to safety while angering many manufacturers and riders. If the UCI is serious about rider safety then it’s course design and course protection that needs the focus.
Miller wrote:
Even non-professionals can easily up their cadence, the point would be that with smaller gears they will reach the point where they will start spinning out, i.e. it’s impossible to spin the cassette at the speed of the wheel (e.g descending at 80km/h with a 54/11 top gear a rider would need to put in 130+rpm to get the freewheel to engage), which is what is needed to gain any extra speed, earlier.
Thank you SO much Rendel, I
Thank you SO much Rendel, I never would have thought of that if you hadn’t so HELPFULLY spelled it out.
So you said something that
So you said something that was clearly stupid, i.e. that pro riders could just combat the change by upping their cadence to whatever RPM they wanted, then when it’s explained to you why that’s stupid you claim you knew it was stupid all along. Here’s a tip, don’t say blatantly stupid things and then I won’t explain to you why you’re being stupid, deal?
UCI puzzled that anyone would
UCI puzzled that anyone would find any of their rules stupid – long-running headline since at least 1995.
The idea that SRAM can’t make
The idea that SRAM can’t make chainrings and sprockets lower than a certain ratio is ludicrous.
I know road.cc have been pushing this silly idea. It’s bizarre that SRAM are now pushing it too – SRAM *definitely* know better.