SRAM has called for the cycling industry to have a “seat at the table” alongside riders, teams, and race organisers, as the components giant’s ongoing battle with the UCI over its planned gear restriction trial hits the appeals court in Belgium.
On Wednesday, a public hearing took place at the Markets Court in Brussels concerning the UCI’s appeal against the Belgian Competition Authority’s decision to order cycling’s governing body to suspend its proposed gear restriction trial, which had been set to take place at the Tour of Guangxi in China, in October.
SRAM had first launched legal proceedings against the UCI a month previously, the component manufacturer arguing that capping rider gear choice in races violates EU competition law and will unfairly impact and penalise the brand’s riders and teams, without increasing safety.
As part of a raft of controversial safety regulations announced in early 2025, the UCI planned to trial its new maximum gearing rule at the final WorldTour event of last season, the Tour of Guangxi, as part of its attempts to limit top speeds and reduce danger in the peloton.
This proposed 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 metres – 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 would have been largely unaffected by the rule.
However, the trial system would 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, under the UCI’s plans, SRAM riders using a 10-tooth cog would 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.
In its complaint to the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), SRAM argued that the proposed protocol was adopted by the UCI without consultation, transparency, or any safety justification, disadvantages SRAM-equipped riders in races, and distorts the drivetrain market, violating EU competition law.
In October, just days before the trial was due to take place in Guangxi, the BCA issued a ruling bringing a halt to the UCI’s plans, arguing that the governing body’s basis for implementing the trial and determining new technical standards did not meet essential conditions of proportionality, objectivity, transparency, and non-discrimination.
The BCA claimed that the trial would have resulted in “undue restriction of competition between sports equipment suppliers”.
> UCI to trial maximum gearing rule — but will it really make racing safer?
However, the UCI immediately hit back at the ruling, noting its “surprise” at the intervention (and, rather bizarrely, the international character of the complaint), while also criticising SRAM and accusing it of failing to prioritise rider safety.
The governing body also said it would appeal the ruling – in the form of a 70-page document – and since then has been exchanging a series of writs with the BCA.
A first public hearing concerning this legal battle took place on Wednesday, where it was announced that a final decision – which could have serious consequences for both cycling and sport in general – will be made by 20 May.
“Today, we asked the Brussels Markets Court to uphold the Belgian Competition Authority’s decision suspending the UCI’s Maximum Gear Ratio Protocol,” SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg said in a statement following the hearing.
“We believe the BCA got it right the first time and agree with their conclusion that the UCI’s rule-making process is not transparent, objective, or non-discriminatory.
“Rider safety is very important to us; we build components that get pushed to their limits by the best cyclists in the world. What we want is simple and has not changed.
“The cycling industry, represented by the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI), deserves a seat at the table with the riders, teams, and race organisers.
“Our sport deserves this level of professionalism and collaboration. SRAM remains eager to work with the UCI to build a better future for the sport we love.”
11 thoughts on “SRAM calls for cycling industry to have a “seat at the table” as row over “discriminatory” gear restriction trial hits appeals court”
What exactly is SRAMs issue with just fitting the required gears. If their cassette currently takes a 10 as smallest then it can definitely take an 11. Why are they making such a big deal over having riders on a 54×11 – which their bikes obviously can take.
Their groupset even.
I think a lot of it comes down to marketing and competitiveness rather pure technical viability. Yes SRAM could develop cassettes with 11t smallest sprockets, but pretty much all of their current higher end road stuff is built around cassettes that go down to 10t. It’s not just about switching to a different cassette – the whole groupset (chainrings, derailleur etc.), even the XDR freehub, is optimized around that approach, and so switching to 11t cassettes means redesigning everything. And it would also mean losing one of the distinctive features of SRAM groupsets, which is bad for customer choice.
The question is what exactly is the UCI’s issue with a 10 tooth cog? As they were unable to answer that question they lost the case and the court agreed with the Belgian Competition Authority that the UCI is making up rules not to make cycling safer but to benefit it’s friends at Shimano.
I don’t think UCI have any issue with a 10-tooth cog. As I read it, and as is/was common with other gearing restrictions (e.g., the one that used to be in place for juniors), the restriction is specified in terms of development (the distance the bike travels with 1 revolution of the pedals). You are free to use any chainrings and cogs you want, as long as the final development can never exceed the specified limit.
I assume the purpose of the 54×11 restriction is to place a limit on the maximum speed that a rider can pedal on a descent before they spin out in order to increase safety on steep/long descents.
Given the restriction is a technical one that SRAM can easily accommodate (if they choose to) then, assuming 54×10 was a definite advantage to the teams running their groupsets, not having this restriction would mean Campo/Shimano etc. could just choose to introduce that ratio themselves.
If SRAM are saying it is discrimination against their teams because they have a speed advantage by being able to pedal at higher speed on descents then … aren’t they basically making the UCI’s point for them?
I can only assume I am missing something.
F1, for example, has a long history of changing the rules to the detriment of a single team where that team is felt to be doing something advantageous that the FIA don’t believe should be permitted.
I think SRAM’s argument is that teams on their equipment have parity at the moment, because 50×10 is effectively equivalent to 54×11 (there’s the square root of FA difference between them), but with this rule (and current equipment) they’ll have to fit a smaller chainring. So the other teams will be able to go as fast as they have been going but those on SRAM will be slower.
It feels like if the UCI had just thought it through to start with they would have just set the limit at the equivalent of 50×10, which would have made no meaningful difference to the restriction but kept everyone happy, but having made a dumb decision they can’t countenance losing face by adjusting the rule.
Unless the UCI have evidence that SRAM riders with their higher gears are causing/having more high speed crashes than Shimano/Campagnolo riders then this is just a distraction from the real cause of crashes.
I don’t think they’ve actually got any evidence that higher gears on any manufacturer’s groupset cause more crashes. As Dan Bigham, who knows a thing or two, has shown through his analysis, the proposed gear reduction will affect 0.1% of racing time and reduce speeds by around 0.5 km/h. He points out that an 80 kg rider descending a 15% gradient receives more than 4000W from gravity, so changing the gears so that they start spinning out at 350W instead of 380W really isn’t going to make much difference.
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that from Dan. If he is correct then the effects of the lower gears could be completely negated by adding 600 grams to the weight of the bike or rider, picking up a full bottle at the top of the hill would do that!
Leave SRAM alone. There are countless non professional SRAM users out there, most of whom probably don’t race, whose whole groupset, wheels, everything will get messed up if the stupid UCI have their way in this one. Out of all the crashes we sadly see in races, probably next to none have anything at all to do with having a slightly higher top gear available. Far more useful for UCI to have a hand in safer course design, marshalling etc. Maybe more guidance around use of team cars in and around the peleton, or restricted and well spread out feed zones as in gravel.
Instead of costing us all a fortune in having us maybe having to change kit with yet another drivetrain standard that might be inflicted on us.