If you thought cycling politics was limited to doping bans and race logistics, buckle up — we’re now in full drivetrain courtroom mode. SRAM has just launched a legal salvo at the UCI over their newly proposed “Maximum Gearing Protocol,” and this is about way more than who wins the yellow jersey. It’s about the future of innovation, fairness, and how much control the sport’s rulers get.
⚙ Gearing Limits: The Spark that Lit the Fuse
Here’s the gist:
The UCI wants to trial a cap on maximum gear rollout — specifically limiting it so that a 54×11 is the upper bound (~10.46 m per pedal revolution).
SRAM’s system is heavily invested in 10-tooth cogs (e.g. 54×10), which would exceed that limit. In effect, under the proposed rules, SRAM‐equipped riders would have to disable their 10-tooth to stay “compliant.”
According to SRAM, this isn’t a small tweak: redesigning their entire compliant drivetrain would take years and massively hurt performance, options, and brand reputation.
So SRAM went to court — more precisely, they filed a complaint with the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), alleging that the UCI’s move is anti-competitive, lacks scientific grounding, and unfairly singles them out.
UCI’s Defense: Safety, Consultation, and a “Test, Not a Rule” Claim
The UCI hasn’t sat idle. Their counter:
They frame it as a test — not a hard rule yet — intended to collect data on whether gearing limits could boost rider safety.
They claim the protocol was developed via stakeholder consultation through SafeR (the safety commission involving riders, teams, organizers) and that a majority of riders supported evaluating gearing caps in a survey.
They caution that the removal of speed potential via gearing is “linked to developments in equipment” and that limiting explosive high-rollout setups is a risk-mitigation approach.
And, throwing shade, UCI suggests SRAM’s legal move undermines unity in cycling and questions their motives.
So it’s now a public debate, not just a courtroom one.
Why We Care (Besides the Tech Freakery)
This duel isn’t just high-end racing drama — it ripples down to all of us riders, weekend warriors, and tinkerer types. Here’s what’s at stake:
Innovation vs regulation
If a governing body can veto specific drivetrain choices, that chills creativity. Manufacturers might hold back on bold designs for fear of non-compliance.
Rider’s choice
The more restrictions, the narrower the kit options. If major brands are constrained, trickle-down tech may stagnate.
Fairness & transparency
SRAM argues the process lacked transparency, that the test is biased (designed around setups not including their 10T systems), and that immediate reputational damage is happening.
Where does safety really come from?
Is speed the real culprit — or are course design, crowd control, race direction more important? Many in the cycling world suspect the safety justification is a bit of a shield to push conformity.
Precedent
If SRAM wins (or forces a rework), that could reset how UCI regulation is challenged — with courts, not just through internal cycling commissions.
Where This Could Go
SRAM wins / injunction granted — The gearing trial gets delayed or canceled, the UCI may be forced to revise or justify its approach more rigorously.
UCI holds ground — If the test proceeds and is accepted in later seasons, new rules may be codified.
Compromise / middle ground — Maybe a modified set of acceptable ratios, or differentiated rules by race type or rider class.
FTSIGR Verdict (Blaze’s Two Cents)
This fight is one to watch. SRAM has backed itself into a corner or onto a battlefield — you don’t flame court systems unless you believe the cost is worth it. If they win, we might see a freer tech future. If they lose, it’s a message: even our machines can be regulated out of existence.
For cyclists everywhere — this is not just about pro pelotons. It’s about the kinds of bikes we can dream up, ride, tinker with. Gear your mind accordingly.
If you want, I can also spin a “Tech Deep Dive” sidebar version — gear ratios, math, implications for gravel — and we can post that as follow-up. Want me to build that?