SRAM are taking the UCI to court over its proposed gear restrictions, saying that the idea has already caused "tangible harm" to its business.
The US component manufacturer has lodged a complaint with the Belgian Competition Authority, it announced on Friday, arguing that the upcoming trial by cycling's governing body at the Tour of Guangxi will "unfairly disadvantage SRAM riders and SRAM".
Following this, SRAM says the BCA has "initiated formal anti-trust proceedings under EU and Belgian competition laws". The company said it is "the only major manufacturer whose current pro team setup will be blocked" by the proposed rules.
The complaint was lodged on 12 September, and BCS started its proceedings on Wednesday.
As first reported by journalist Daniel Benson on his Substack, the 'Maximum Gearing' protocol will limit riders to a maximum gear ratio which is equivalent to 54x11 in a bid by the UCI's SafeR commission to improve safety amongst the peloton and reduce speeds within races.
The new restriction limits the maximum gear ratio to 10.46 metres in a roll out test which will almost certainly cap the highest gear that riders can use during a race situation.
Unlike other major brands like Shimano or Campagnolo, SRAM riders would need major adjustments, with most pros using 54x10 gearing. SRAM currently provides equipment to four major men's WorldTour teams: Visma-Lease a Bike, Movistar, Lidl-Trek and Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe.
The SRAM statement says: "The protocol forces SRAM to mechanically disable its 10-tooth cog, reducing gear options and placing SRAM-equipped riders at a competitive disadvantage."
SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg, said: "This protocol penalises 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.
"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."
The statement also says that the concept has "already caused tangible harm" to SRAM. "SRAM’s gearing has been publicly labeled as non-compliant, creating reputational damage, market confusion, team and athlete anxiety, and potential legal exposure," it reads.
- 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).
SRAM chose to go down the legal route due to the UCI leadership declining "to engage in meaningful dialogue regarding the rule’s validity or its basis". A spokesperson said the Belgian Competition Authority is "is well positioned to pursue the matter and has demonstrated a commitment to fairness and integrity in sport".
"Calling it [the Tour of Guangxi] a test doesn’t make it any less of a race," Lousberg added. "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.
"If you talk to riders across the sport, they are asking for safer races, for better course designs. 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."
Lousberg said: "Given the way the governing body makes its decisions — decisions such as handlebar width, rim depth, the recent transponder implementation and penalisation 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."
On Saturday morning, a UCI spokesperson said: "The UCI is puzzled by the issuance of the Belgian Competition Authority’s press release before the UCI has even been served with the complaint and by the obvious inaccuracies contained in this statement. In particular, the statement does not reflect the fact that the UCI has publicly indicated that it will consider the findings of this test before considering if further tests are relevant in 2026. Only then, would the UCI potentially consider any changes to the regulations.
"Even more surprisingly, the release does not even deem it necessary to indicate that the test that will be conducted by the UCI is aimed at exploring measures aimed at increasing rider safety, which is a fundamental prerogative of all sport governing bodies."
They continued: "The UCI is confident that its proposal to test limitations to gearing is compliant with EU and Belgian competition law. It is not the role of competition law to lead to a ‘levelling down’ in regulatory and safety standards.
The UCI will continue to collaborate with the stakeholders of cycling through SafeR for the improvement of safety and shall not make any further comments on these proceedings."
