UCI to continue legal fight with SRAM over controversial gear-ratio limits

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) is set to continue its legal battle against SRAM over the controversial gear ratio limits imposed on professional road cycling. The dispute revolves around the UCI’s Maximum Gear Ratio Test Protocol, which restricts bikes to a 54x11 top gear, a measure introduced in selected races during 2025. This protocol was developed following recommendations from SafeR, the sport’s safety body, with the aim of reducing speeds in the peloton and enhancing rider safety. SRAM has strongly opposed the gear ratio restrictions, arguing that the protocol unfairly disadvantages its drivetrain configurations by effectively disabling its 10-tooth cog, thereby limiting gear options for riders using SRAM components. The American manufacturer challenged the UCI’s measures before the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), which ruled in SRAM’s favour and ordered the suspension of the test programme. The BCA emphasised that technical standards must be proportionate, objective, transparent, and non-discriminatory, warning against undue restrictions that could distort competition among cycling equipment suppliers. The UCI appealed the BCA’s decision, maintaining that the protocol was primarily a safety initiative rather than a commercial issue. However, the Brussels Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal, concluding that the UCI had not sufficiently demonstrated that the gear ratio limits were necessary or proportionate to improve rider safety. Despite this setback, the UCI remains determined to pursue the matter and has announced plans to appeal to Belgium’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, which will review whether the law was correctly applied in the previous rulings. Following a meeting of its Management Committee, the UCI reiterated that the gear ratio test was designed to collect rider feedback on potential safety benefits and insisted it was not intended to restrict competition unfairly. The governing body expressed concerns about the low threshold used by the BCA for interim measures and the limited scope of the Court of Appeal’s review, signalling its commitment to continue the legal fight. The outcome of the appeal to the Court of Cassation will be closely watched, as it could have significant implications for the regulation of equipment standards and safety measures in professional cycling.