SRAM at loggerheads with UCI on gearing limitations

SRAM has filed a formal complaint with the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) against the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) disputing the UCI’s Maximum Gearing Protocol. SRAM said: “There are things we can do to help make races safer, but arbitrarily restricting a gearing choice… is fundamentally unfair.”

SRAM’s complaint was filed on 12 September and a week later – 17 September 2025 – the BCA initiated formal anti-trust proceedings under EU and Belgian competition laws after reviewing SRAM’s complaint.

SRAM has issued a press statement explaining its move, stating that it sought assistance from the BCA in the matter because the authority is well positioned to pursue the matter and has demonstrated a commitment to fairness and integrity in sport. The Prosecutor General of the BCA will conduct an investigation and present the findings to the Competition College, the impartial decision-making body of the BCA, for an ultimate ruling.

Part of SRAM’s complaint points out that the UCI’s restriction currently only affects SRAM “unjustly penalising SRAM riders and SRAM”. The brand went on to criticise the UCI for making decisions with little transparency: “given the way the governing body makes its decisions — decisions such as handlebar width, rim depth, the recent transponder implementation and penalization of teams in Romandie… even sock height — it’s impossible to know who may be impacted in the future. Through this process we hope to create a more transparent and collaborative climate for teams and component suppliers that ultimately leads to a better and safer sport for all.”

Here’s the rest of the lengthy statement from SRAM, plus a letter from its CEO:

SRAM is challenging the UCI’s gearing restrictions for selected events, which limit gear rollout to a maximum of 10.46 meters per pedal revolution — equivalent to a 54×11 gearing configuration. This restriction excludes drivetrains that exceed this threshold, primarily SRAM’s RED AXS drivetrain in a 54×10 configuration, a preferred choice for many of SRAM’s professional teams.

SRAM is the only major manufacturer whose current pro team setup will be blocked by the new UCI regulations — regulations that hinder innovation, limit rider choice, and unfairly disadvantage SRAM riders and SRAM.

SRAM made multiple attempts to engage the UCI and raise concerns about the impact of the Maximum Gearing Protocol on SRAM riders, teams, and SRAM itself. Despite these efforts, UCI leadership declined to engage in meaningful dialogue regarding the rule’s validity or its basis. While SRAM continues to participate in technical discussions to help teams comply with the restrictions at the announced gearing-restricted race, the lack of transparency and collaboration left legal action as the only remaining path forward.

“This protocol penalizes and discourages innovation and puts our riders and teams at a competitive disadvantage. We could not have imagined the drivetrains of today when SRAM was founded nearly 40 years ago, and we know the drivetrains of the next decade will continue to evolve. We rely on the sport’s governing body to foster an environment that encourages innovation for the benefit of riders and racers today, and riders in the future,” said Ken Lousberg, SRAM’s CEO. “We also rely on the governing body to make science-based, impactful changes for rider safety. We are the harshest critics of our own equipment that is raced and ridden around the world; safety is paramount to us.”

Although the UCI refers to the Maximum Gearing Protocol as a “test,” its implementation has already caused tangible harm. SRAM’s gearing has been publicly labeled as non-compliant, creating reputational damage, market confusion, team and athlete anxiety, and potential legal exposure. It is for these reasons SRAM has also sought immediate injunctive relief, halting the gearing restriction requirement at the Guangxi event and any future events.

If the gearing restriction is not lifted, racers using unmodified SRAM drivetrains risk disqualification and financial penalties, and SRAM-sponsored teams face immediate disadvantages that impact race results and potential sponsorship. If the gearing restriction is not lifted, racers using unmodified SRAM drivetrains risk disqualification and financial penalties, and SRAM-sponsored teams face immediate disadvantages that impact race results and potential sponsorship opportunities. Further, SRAM and its supplied teams have not been able to adequately test limiting gearing in such a way, creating unnecessary risk for SRAM-equipped riders.

The UCI has designated the Tour of Guangxi for enforcement but has indicated that additional events may follow, leaving SRAM and its sponsored teams, both current and future, in a state of uncertainty.

“Calling it a test doesn’t make it any less of a race,” Lousberg said. “All riders on the start line should be able to compete on equal footing. Right now, SRAM-equipped teams will have to race at a disadvantage on compromised equipment with a reduced number of gearing options compared to their competitors. It’s also not clear what is being tested.”

SRAM’s complaint alleges that the UCI Maximum Gearing Protocol:

• Was adopted without consultation or transparency and lacks supporting empirical evidence, and any safety justification.
• Disadvantages SRAM-equipped riders in professional cycling events.
• Distorts competition in the road drivetrain market by limiting choice for professional teams and ultimately consumers, as SRAM relies on top-level teams to use and market its products.
• Violates EU and Belgium competition law (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU).

While the UCI has framed the protocol as a safety initiative, no evidence has been presented to support such claims. SRAM’s analysis of crash data from the 2025 Tour de France, using telemetry and footage, found no correlation between higher rollout configurations and crash risk. Crashes on descents were rare and occurred at speeds achievable on gearing configurations from all suppliers for WorldTour teams.

“If you talk to riders across the sport, they are asking for safer races, for better course designs,” Lousberg said. “There are things we as a collective can do to help make races safer, but arbitrarily restricting a gearing choice — a gearing choice that only we provide to our teams — is fundamentally unfair to teams, riders, and SRAM.”

SRAM spent nearly a decade developing a modern gearing philosophy that has reshaped road cycling and has been embraced by weekend riders and Tour de France champions. SRAM intentionally moved beyond the 11-tooth as the lowest gear, favoring a more innovative drivetrain architecture. Complying with the protocol would require a full redesign and technical step back — a process that would take years.

Due to UCI’s baseless assertions, the public may already mistakenly view SRAM’s gearing as illegal, exposing SRAM to reputational harm and potential liability. If the restriction becomes permanent, retailers and OEMs may abandon SRAM products, jeopardizing SRAM’s market share in high-performance road drivetrains.

“We’re proud of the position we’ve earned in the market over nearly four decades,” said Lousberg. “It’s not something we’re willing to relinquish because of arbitrary drivetrain restrictions imposed by a governing body — and we won’t back down without making our case.”

As part of its complaint, SRAM requests the immediate suspension of the gearing restrictions, representation for bike and equipment manufacturers on the board responsible for equipment rulings and changes, and the establishment of internal procedures that ensure future UCI regulatory efforts comply with EU competition law.

“Today, the UCI’s actions unjustly penalize SRAM riders and SRAM,” Lousberg said. “But given the way the governing body makes its decisions — decisions such as handlebar width, rim depth, the recent transponder implementation and penalization of teams in Romandie… even sock height — it’s impossible to know who may be impacted in the future. Through this process we hope to create a more transparent and collaborative climate for teams and component suppliers that ultimately leads to a better and safer sport for all.”

A Letter from Ken Lousberg, CEO of SRAM

To our riders, racers, teams, and partners across the cycling industry,

SRAM was founded nearly four decades ago with a simple belief: that innovation drives progress. From Grip Shift to wireless shifting, we’ve challenged convention to give riders better tools to perform, compete, and enjoy the ride.

Today, we face another challenge — not of technology, but of fairness.

The UCI’s new Maximum Gearing Protocol is set to restrict the equipment many of you rely on to ride and race at your best. It limits choice, stifles innovation, and unfairly targets SRAM riders — and SRAM itself. We’ve tried to engage the UCI, cycling’s governing body, in good faith, but our concerns went unheard. That’s why we’ve taken legal action — not just to protect SRAM, but to protect the right to compete on equal footing.

We’re not asking for much. We simply want our racers to compete on a level playing  field, and for the industry to be recognized and included as a core stakeholder — working together to make our sport safer for athletes and more inspiring for fans. We care deeply about the athletes of our sport. They are our friends, our family members, and respected competitors. Our remedy to this complaint is to consider the industry as a whole and for all key stakeholders to have an equal voice in the decisions.

We know this rule has already caused confusion, anxiety, and disruption. We’re working hard to resolve it quickly and transparently. Our commitment to rider safety, performance, and innovation remains unchanged. We believe the future of cycling should be shaped by collaboration and partnership, not exclusion and intimidation.

Thank you for standing with us. We’re proud to support fairness in our sport, and we’ll keep fighting for a future that’s equitable, open, and driven by progress and innovation.

Ken Lousberg
CEO, SRA

The UCI has yet to issue a statement in return, at time of writing.