Gearing Up for a Fight: SRAM Challenges UCI‘s New Maximum gearing Rule
The world of professional cycling is rarely quiet, but a brewing dispute between SRAM, a leading drivetrain manufacturer, and the Union cycliste Internationale (UCI), the sport’s governing body, is generating significant waves. At the heart of the conflict lies a new UCI rule limiting maximum gearing ratios, a change poised to disproportionately impact SRAM-equipped riders and sparking accusations of anti-competitive practices. This article dives deep into the controversy, exploring the technical details, the legal challenges, and the implications for the future of professional cycling.
The new Rule: A Matter of Meters Per pedal Revolution
effective at the 2025 Tour of Guangxi (October 14-19), the UCI will implement a maximum gearing test. This isn’t about simply limiting the size of chainrings or cassettes. Instead, the rule focuses on the rollout – the distance a bike travels with each complete pedal revolution. the UCI has set a limit of 8.46 meters per pedal revolution.
This seemingly technical detail has significant ramifications. For teams utilizing Shimano or Campagnolo drivetrains, the transition is relatively seamless. These systems already commonly feature an 11-tooth cog on the cassette, allowing for gearing combinations that comfortably fall within the new limit. A typical maximum gearing combination for these systems is around 54×11.
Though, SRAM has strategically built its success on cassettes utilizing a 10-tooth cog, offering riders a wider range and, crucially, the potential for higher top-end speeds. With a 10-tooth cog, the largest permissible gearing combination to meet the UCI’s limit is a 49×10. The problem? This configuration actually exceeds the 8.46-meter limit, resulting in a rollout of 10.44 meters per pedal revolution – putting SRAM-sponsored athletes at a clear disadvantage.
SRAM Fires Back: An Anti-trust Complaint
Unsurprisingly, SRAM isn’t taking this lying down. The company has formally lodged a complaint with the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), alleging that the UCI’s rule is anti-competitive and unfairly targets its technology. the BCA, recognizing the potential merit of the claim, initiated formal anti-trust proceedings under both EU and Belgian competition laws on September 17, 2025.
SRAM’s argument centers on the idea that the UCI is effectively stifling innovation and creating an uneven playing field.The company argues that its 10-tooth cog technology offers legitimate performance benefits and that restricting its use without demonstrable safety concerns is a violation of fair competition principles.
Furthermore, SRAM is seeking immediate injunctive relief, aiming to halt the gearing restriction at the Guangxi event and any future races until the matter is resolved. The company highlights the tangible harm already caused by the UCI’s announcement, including reputational damage, market confusion, and anxiety among teams and athletes.
The UCI’s Defense: Safety First?
The UCI’s response is carefully worded. While acknowledging the BCA’s investigation, the governing body insists the new rule is solely a “safety test.” The UCI expresses surprise at the BCA’s public statement, emphasizing that the test is merely a preliminary step. They state they will “consider the findings of this test before considering if further tests are relevant in 2026,” and only then would they contemplate permanent regulation changes.
The core of the UCI’s argument is that excessively high gearing ratios can lead to increased speeds and possibly risky situations, notably on descents. However, SRAM vehemently disputes this claim, stating, “There is no empirical data or analysis linking higher rollout ratios to crash risk.”
SRAM also criticizes the test’s methodology, arguing it’s fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t measure the very factor it aims to assess - rider safety. They contend the test is designed to validate a pre-conceived, and unsubstantiated, hypothesis.
A clash of Philosophies and a Question of Innovation
This dispute isn’t simply about gears; it’s about the future of cycling technology and the role of the UCI in regulating it. SRAM’s investment in 10-tooth cog technology represents a significant innovation, pushing the boundaries of drivetrain performance. The UCI’s response, while framed as a safety measure, appears to many as a conservative approach that prioritizes tradition over progress.
The UCI’s confidence in the legality of its proposal under EU
