US Component brand SRAM has announced a legal challenge to the UCI’s impending gear restriction test and rules, which will come into force shortly at the Tour of Guanxi, claiming the rules unfairly disadvantages SRAM-equipped teams as well as disparages SRAM in the road drivetrain market.
SRAM argues that there is no sound evidence that higher rollout rations (harder gears, in common parlance) relate to an increased risk of crashing.
The US component rans made their challenge via the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA). The BCA said the "investigation will seek to determine whether the adoption of the ‘Maximum Gearing’ technical standard by the UCI amounts to an anticompetitive decision."
SRAM said it made multiple attempts to engage the UCI and raise concerns about the impact of the gear restriction test and rules but UCI leadership declined to engage in meaningful dialogue.
“This protocol penalizes and discourages innovation and puts our
riders and teams at a competitive disadvantage," SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg said in a statement sent to Cyclingnews.
The new UCI rules on gears are part of a package of measures that the governing body has either imposed or is set to trial, with the aim of improving rider safety primarily by means of reducing overall velocity. The measures include rim depth restrictions and handlebar width restrictions that have drawn the ire of bike fitters and female athletes.
The impending gear restriction rules effectively outlaw anything equivalent to or exceeding a 54x10t drivetrain.
SRAM is the only groupset manufacturer to offer a 10-tooth sprocket, so is the only brand affected by these new rules, which in turn will impact the teams it sponsors, including Lidl-Trek, Visma-Lease A Bike, and Movistar.
Sram and the teams will allegedly suffer a significant disadvantage compared to Shimano and Campagnolo, and their teams.
Here at Cyclingnews we speculated on how SRAM teams will get around these rules given that development of new components takes significant time and investment.
We assumed that mechanics would simply use a longer limit screw to physically prevent the derailleur from accessing the 10t sprocket, in much the same way as we saw from Lidl-Trek at Paris-Roubaix this year with their 13sp to 12sp hack for tighter gear spacing.
This, it seems, is also SRAM’s solution:
“SRAM is the only company, at scale, equipping teams and riders across the world with drivetrains that exceed the rollout limit. The protocol forces SRAM to mechanically disable its 10-tooth cog, reducing gear options and placing SRAM-equipped riders at a competitive disadvantage.”
Beyond simply disadvantaging its athletes, SRAM is also claiming these new rules will cause reputational damage and potential civil liability (presumably from the implication that its systems are somehow less ‘safe’ than compliant ones), loss of retailer and OEM support, erosion of global market share, and ‘up to a decade of reinvestment to recover’.
"Although the UCI refers to the Maximum Gearing Protocol as a “test,” its implementation has already caused tangible harm," the statement read.
"SRAM’s gearing has been publicly labeled as non-compliant, creating reputational damage, market confusion, team and athlete anxiety, and potential legal exposure."
SRAM explained that the company will attempt to use legal action to stop the gearing restrictions from coming into force.
"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," the statement continued.
Gearing and safety
Will forcing SRAM riders to disable their smallest sprocket make them safer? SRAM certainly doesn’t believe so.
This sentiment is mirrored by many pro riders, with the likes of Tom Pidcock being openly critical of many of the new rules.
It must be said that the new rules to try to improve rider safety have been, from an outside perspective at least, imposed in what appears to be a reactionary and haphazard way, with little effort gone into improving things like course design and crowd management.
Likewise, if reducing race speeds is the overall goal, perhaps changing the rules in recent years to make bikes significantly more aerodynamic might not have been conducive to that end, something we pointed out following the results of our recent wind tunnel testing.
