US component brand SRAM has announced a legal challenge to the UCI’s impending gear restriction test and rules, which will come into force shortly at the Tour of Guanxi, claiming the rules unfairly disadvantages SRAM-equipped teams and also disparages SRAM in the road drivetrain market.
SRAM argues that there is no sound evidence that higher rollout rations (harder gears, in common parlance) relate to an increased risk of crashing.
The US component rans made their challenge via the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA). The BCA said the “investigation will seek to determine whether the adoption of the ‘Maximum Gearing’ technical standard by the UCI amounts to an anticompetitive decision.”
SRAM said it made multiple attempts to engage the UCI and raise concerns about the impact of the gear restriction test and rules but UCI leadership declined to engage in meaningful dialog.
“This protocol penalizes and discourages innovation and puts our riders and teams at a competitive disadvantage,” SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg said in a statement sent to Cyclingnews.
The new UCI rules on gears are part of a package of measures that the governing body has either imposed or is set to trial, with the aim of improving rider safety primarily by means of reducing overall velocity. The measures include rim depth restrictions and handlebar width restrictions that have drawn the ire of bike fitters and female athletes.
The impending gear restriction rules effectively outlaw anything equivalent to or exceeding a 54x10t drivetrain.
SRAM is the only groupset manufacturer to offer a
SRAM challenges UCI Gearing Restrictions, Citing Safety Concerns and Potential Financial harm
Table of Contents
The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), cycling’s governing body, recently introduced new gearing restrictions intended to improve rider safety. However, these rules are facing strong opposition from SRAM, a major component manufacturer, who argues the restrictions are detrimental to its athletes, damaging to its reputation, and potentially legally actionable. SRAM is pursuing legal action to halt the implementation of the rules, claiming they will cause significant financial and operational setbacks.
The Dispute: UCI’s Maximum Gearing Protocol
The UCI’s “Maximum Gearing Protocol” limits the gear ratios permitted in professional cycling races. The aim is to reduce speeds, especially on descents, following several high-profile crashes. The rules require riders to disable their smallest sprocket in certain situations. However, SRAM contends that the implementation of these rules has been rushed and poorly considered, and that its systems are being unfairly targeted.
SRAM’s Claims of Harm
SRAM released a statement outlining the extensive negative consequences it anticipates from the UCI’s regulations.these include:
* Reputational Damage: SRAM argues that publicly labeling its gearing as “non-compliant” harms its brand image and creates market confusion.
* Potential Civil Liability: The company fears legal repercussions stemming from the implication that its products are less safe than those adhering to the new rules.
* Loss of Support: SRAM anticipates a decline in support from retailers and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).
* Market share Erosion: The company believes the restrictions will negatively impact its global market share.
* Significant Reinvestment Costs: SRAM estimates it will require “up to a decade of reinvestment to recover” from the financial impact of the rule changes.
“Although the UCI refers to the Maximum Gearing Protocol as a “test,” its implementation has already caused tangible harm,” SRAM stated. “SRAM’s gearing has been publicly labeled as non-compliant, creating reputational damage, market confusion, team and athlete anxiety, and potential legal exposure.” The company has sought an injunction to halt the restrictions at the Guangxi event and future races.
Safety Concerns and Rider Criticism
A central argument against the UCI’s rules revolves around safety. SRAM believes forcing riders to disable their smallest sprocket could actually increase risk.This sentiment is shared by several professional cyclists, including Tom Pidcock, who has been openly critical of the new regulations, alongside concerns about other recent rule changes. https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-need-to-talk-about-the-important-issues-tom-pidcock-criticises-ucis-incoming-safety-measures-on-gear-limits-and-handlebar-width/
Critics argue the UCI’s approach is reactive rather than proactive, focusing on equipment rather than addressing essential safety issues like course design and crowd control. Some also point out that recent changes aimed at increasing aerodynamic efficiency may have inadvertently contributed to higher race speeds,counteracting the goal of improved safety.