UCI “questions SRAM’s objectives” in maximum gearing spat and bemoans teams that objected to GPS tracking data

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) has reacted to SRAM’s complaint filed with the Belgian Competition Authority, concerning the Maximum Gear Ratio Test Protocol.

The UCI has said that all its technical regulations, including the protocol for testing maximum gear ratios, have been “developed in the best interests of cycling, athlete safety and fair sport”, noting that rules are arrived at after consultation involving stakeholders in the sector, including teams, riders, and organisers.

It won’t be the first public spat involving the UCI, which has in the past been accused of a ‘power grab’ by BMX icon Mat Hoffman, and was accused of not properly vetting disc brake tech by the CPA, among other examples, which stretch much further back into history with some questioning whether the UCI has “stunted cycling’s progress” over the years.

In this instance with SRAM, the UCI has used robust language in defending its position regarding the max gear ratio test, which was developed for the purpose of conducting such a test at the 2025 Tour of Guangxi (14-19 October).

The UCI’s said: “The Maximum Gear Ratio Test Protocol was established based on a recommendation from SafeR – the entity that brings together representatives of riders, teams, organisers and the UCI with the aim of increasing safety in men’s and women’s professional cycling – with the aim of collecting data to determine whether gear ratio limitation is an area that needs to be regulated. Indeed, it has been proven that the increase in maximum speeds reached by riders in recent years, particularly on descents, is linked to developments in equipment and constitutes a risk factor for their safety. It should also be noted that the majority of riders expressed their support for testing maximum gear ratio limits in a questionnaire sent to all riders before the protocol was developed. Similarly, the CPA – the body representing riders – confirmed its desire for this test to be carried out during the recent Professional Cycling Council meeting, held on 10 September.

“The Maximum Gear Ratio Test Protocol does not target any specific brand or supplier, but applies uniformly to all riders in the peloton.” But SRAM’s complaint pointed out that the UCI’s restriction currently only affects SRAM and therefore is “unjustly penalising SRAM riders and SRAM”.

The UCI went on to bemoan that its quest to boost the problem of safety in elite cycling has faced obstacles from teams: “The UCI emphasises that improving safety in road cycling competitions, which is desired by all stakeholders in cycling, can only be achieved through the efforts of all parties. The UCI regrets that, following the refusal of several teams to participate in the testing of GPS rider safety tracking technology during the Tour de Romandie Féminin, an equipment manufacturer is now also opposing a test aimed at collecting data to examine the relevance of a safety improvement measure.”

The association added: “The UCI remains fully open to dialogue with equipment manufacturers, in order to continue the harmonious and innovative development of our sport. Technological innovation is an essential driver of cycling, but it must be part of a clear, transparent regulatory framework that respects the safety of athletes.”

The UCI closed its retaliatory statement with this zinger: “However, the UCI questions SRAM’s objectives in opposing a test designed to assess the relevance of a safety enhancement measure, thereby undermining the necessary unity among cycling stakeholders, which is essential for progress toward a safer sport.”