The UCI’s latest attempt to make racing safer is to limit the size of bike computers to 126 x 71mm, a detail at the bottom of a lengthy press release that also confirms its intention to appeal SRAM’s court victory over its gear ratio regulations. The restriction is aimed at controlling the amount of data available to riders during races, with the governing body arguing this can “increase cognitive load” and contribute to accidents.
On Friday at 5:20pm BST, the UCI issued a press release titled: “The UCI reviews cycling development in India and modifies provisions governing participation of Belarusian and Russian athletes in international competitions in line with IOC recommendations” – all innocuous-sounding enough, but scroll further and we arrived at what looks like a fairly significant equipment rule change deemed important for “rider safety and the fairness of competition” by the governing body. The subject? Bike computers.
The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has a comprehensive set of rules governing bikes and equipment, which it says are designed to ensure both rider safety and fair competition.
Those regulations have come under scrutiny again recently following the disqualification of Lorena Wiebes after a post-stage inspection found her bike to be below the UCI’s 6.8kg minimum weight limit.
From 1 January 2028, bike computers used in competition will be restricted to a maximum size of 126 x 71mm. The Wahoo Elemnt Ace is currently the largest bike computer on the market which measures 125 x 70mm – 1mm under the new limits.
Despite Wahoo-sponsored teams having the option to use the Elemnt Ace, we can’t remember the last time we actually saw a rider using one in the pro peloton, with most riders opting for the smaller Elemnt Roam or Bolt.
The UCI says the move is driven by concerns over “the impact of on-board technologies on the cognitive load experienced by riders”, citing that studies suggest increasing amounts of data can contribute to “increased cognitive workload” and, ultimately, accidents.
However, the UCI itself seems to concede that no specific safety work has been done on this, saying that it intends to consult stakeholders “to gain a better understanding of how riders interact with the various data streams available to them during competition”.
While it’s hard to see at present how this will meaningfully impact safety, we have seen innovations such as Flite’s fully integrated virtual cockpit that combines a built-in bike computer display, light and bell. That said, this is arguably more likely to fall under handlebar regulations than bike computer rules.
As many of you will know, this isn’t the first time the UCI has framed equipment changes around safety concerns that have then been met with scrutiny. Last year, 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, as well as plans to trial a “Maximum Gearing” Test Protocol.
The maximum gearing rule would significantly impact SRAM-sponsored teams and last month, SRAM won an appeal with the Brussels Market Court ruling that the UCI failed to meet transparency and non-discrimination standards or show how new rules would improve safety.
This hasn’t ended there, though. Further down the lengthy UCI press release, the governing body makes clear it is not stepping back from its stance on gear ratio limits, stating: “In light of the Brussels Court of Appeal’s decision, and concerned by both the very low threshold applied by the BCA for imposing interim measures and the limited scope of the Court of Appeal’s review in the appeal proceedings, the Management Committee confirmed the UCI’s intention to lodge an appeal before the Belgian Court of Cassation.”
What do you think about the new bike computer ruling? Let us know in the comments section below.
17 thoughts on “UCI to restrict size of bike computers in the name of protecting riders from on-screen data overload – will this really make racing safer?”
It’s not really the size of the device that matters, but the number of fields, how clear they are and how intuitive they are. Admittedly a larger screen may allow more fields, but equally it could allow for more clarity.
More arbitrary guff from the UCI.
I thought the socks measuring was peak arbitrary at the time, yet here we are.
What is more dangerous, a lot of data that can easily be seen on a large screen or a lot of data that you have to squint to see on a small screen? Answers on a postcard to UCI, Aigle, Switzerland.
So . . . are riders restricted to having only 1 bike computer?
Isn’t this a size & poor sightist regulation? Smaller riders are closer to the screen, so it seems larger, & a larger screen can help those with poorer vision.
& I hereby patent a curved screen in the form of a 125mm * circumferential tube that cam be rotated as desired (* or is it ∞mm?)
Smaller screens? Fine.
That means that if a rider does decide to use more data, they will need either of the following:
– more data screens with time needed to switch between them
– smaller font on the display
, with both obviously terrible for safety.
Oh how I love UCI rules. They’re not even full of loopholes, they are more like craters interwoven with silk threads.
BTW isn’t it lovely how the UCI found a way to satisfy all market players when no UCI sponsor is a major stakeholder in the deal?
Hmm – not sure Ukrainians would necessarily agree with that.
@mdavidford Ukraine has banned the native language of 70% of the population and bombed the shts out of a strictly Russian ethnic region, Donbass, for 8 years, over their referedum for independance. They bomb Russian churches and schools, focusing on civilian targets. It’s a race war to them. For Russia, it’s about NATO promises being broking and border safety. If they wanted bloodshed, they’d have gone into leveling neighborhoods as has been Ukraine’s focus bombing Donbass 2014-2022. Guess why that genocide suddenly ended? Guess why you probably never heard of it?
Imagine Spain had bombed Catalunya including Barcelona back to the bronze age. Or the UK doing it to Scotland, had the referendum passed over that 49% line.
USA is bombing girls’ schools in Iran, and basically anything they think they can hit. What’s different about them not being sanctioned at all? No boycotts at all? Is it because they’ve proven they’ll use the nuclear bomb against civilians, something no-one else ever stooped to? And the US remains threathening it.
Even Nobel Peace Prize laureat Obama, vowed to start nuking Russia before they threw the first stick.
What are your views on equality in ethics and standards?
@cloxxki Could we just go back to who invaded whom in the first place?
And could you remind us all the story of Bucha, just so we hear it clearly?
If there’s one thing the efforts of Russia to eliminate Ukraine as an independent state able to make choices for all its people has achieved, it’s to bolster a sense of Ukrainian identity among speakers of all the languages there. (Well… not certain about the Hungarian, Romanian or Bulgarian speakers).
Pretty much every part of the war seems an own goal … except for quashing challenges to the regime and increasing internal repression within Russia. (Although perhaps too early to say).
Referendum you say? Of the kind where “these armed gendarmes will escort you to the voting booth and help you fill in your name and address and your vote, in case of … accidents”?
Language you say? Presumably the fact that the first language of the current Ukrainian president is Russian shows this is a *deep* false flag operation? (Plus the fact he’s also Jewish just shows how twisted nazis are…)
The fact that the US does bad things also is whataboutery – indeed the Soviet Union used to like that (“but what about black Americans? “)
I thought bots were supposed to provide dozens of spurious links to back stuff up these days?
@cloxxki I think if you’ve proved anything, it’s that it’s very much not innocuous…
@cloxxki
Too many lies in your post to address every one, but just on that front, the Donbas prior to the Russian invasion was 58% ethnic Ukrainian and 38% Russian. Unsurprisingly, those figures have shifted somewhat since Russia invaded 90% of it; that will happen when you invade somewhere and kill tens of thousands of inhabitants and drive more than two million of them into exile.
One may expect more from UCI bureaucrats who want to micro-manage every aspect of pro cycling :
Cut-off time for bathroom breaks before and after races
Cut-off time on social media on race days
Number of cuppas per rest and race days
Duration of shower time after races
Length of hair and hairs
Number of paces to walk on rest days
And on goes the list. The more UCI penpushers busy themselves with new senseless regulations, the higher go their budget. Big Nanny is now part of the pro pelotons.
@MaxiMinimalist I would vote for all of the above if they had verifiable proof that it improved safety but what the UCI are doing at the moment is all safety theatre because in reality improving rider safety is not easy.
I don’t really mind this type of rule from the UCI. Is it a massive deal, no, but you probably don’t want the riders riding with iPads on the front of their bikes (and don’t want larger items coming loose in crashes), so setting them at the limit of what’s on the market at the moment seems sensible.
Isn’t the max size of a bike computer dictated by what can fit between the bars on TT bikes? The new stipulated maximum must be about at this physical limit anyway.
@Mr Blackbird Pros aren’t racing with big computers anyway – AFAIK no-one has ever used the Wahoo Ace in a race. Many riders opt for the smallest possible unit, such as the Bolt or even the Garmin Edge 130.
As such, I don’t think fitting between the bars of a TT bike has ever really been a consideration. Sure, in some cases it would physically prevent the use of a very large computer but a) no-one want to use large computers anyway; b) in the grand scheme of running a race team, it would not be a significant cost to run different, smaller computers on TT bikes if needed and large computers on road bikes (so the rule would still be necessary if there was concern about their use on road bikes); and c) with most pro TT bike now using shaped carbon extensions rather than simple round tubes, computer mounts tend to be custom built by the manufacturer, and so would be perfectly feasible to design the mount to allow fitting of a very large computer if there was demand (but again, there’s not).
What’s happened to the smart sunglasses we were going to be offered that would project data straight onto the inside of the lens? One would have thought if they actually worked they’d be a godsend for pros, removing the aero drag of the head unit.