Get your 
ready
SRAM takes UCI to court in battle over gear restrictions via Escape Collective
2 Likes
Hey, for once people are fighting back against UCI. This will be fun to watch.
6 Likes
Totally agree on both counts. I really hoping SRAM wins this quickly.
6 Likes
Please have the women’s peloton do this next over bar width restrictions.
12 Likes
Good on SRAM.
I think the UCI is going to have a hard time defending their decision since a lot of people have already poked a lot of holes into it. In addition, one of the commenters on the article mentions that the decision to file the decision in Europe vs say the US is that it places more onus on the UCI.
I am sure the women’s peloton is watching this closely as mentioned above for the bar width issue. They are probably glad to see someone like SRAM, who has an annual revenue around $1 billion and can afford a lot more lawyer fees, go after the UCI first to set a precedent
1 Like
Definitely getting the popcorn for this one. The UCI couldn’t have been more obvious/stupid about structuring the new rules specifically around Shimano’s gearing. If was a real FU statement to SRAM. How they couldn’t see that as a potential regulatory issue is beyond me, but maybe they did and didn’t care. I don’t know much about the specific EU regulations for this kind of stuff, but the current drivetrain space is basically a duopoly (sorry Campy) and I know the EU has been pretty aggressive in the past on anti trust stuff. I hope SRAM wins this one.
2 Likes
I’m really curious to see what “evidence” the UCI puts up to justify the regulations, if they even try to justify them beyond “we are the governing body, we can do anything we want”
1 Like
Part of me is thinking the UCI could do whatever they want as much as they are a private entity. I mean, if Formula One wanted to kick Pirelli tires out of their race series because Pirelli wasn’t putting as much $ in F1’s pockets as another tire vendor, I assume they could do it. But even though the UCI is an independent organization, I think they get funding from the national federations of multiple countries. Does that make them more accountable like a government entity? I have no idea, but I personally don’t like how they roll and would like to see them lose this one. I think it will be easy for SRAM to prove that the rule intentionally favors Shimano, the core question will be whether that’s within the UCI’s rights.
I really hope SRAM fights this on broader grounds more akin to the UCI has no evidence or good hypothesis that the change it is trying to make will lead to the outcome (safer racer not defined) that is its goal. If this is the broader fight, it would create a blueprint for riders - women + men - to use to over turn the UCI’s handlebar width rule
1 Like
or just all of the racers.
Can’t they just do that though? I’m not supporting the UCI, but if they say, we are the governing body for these races, we think restricting gears will be safer, these are the rules. It’s like if the NFL decides to ban gloves, saying they make it too easy to catch the ball, then Nike tries to sue them over lost profit, would that even work? SRAM could just produce different gearing to satisfy the rule. Think about any governing body for any sport. If they make a new rule, can a brand just take them to court because they don’t like the rule?
Again, I think all of the new UCI rules are completely idiotic and hope they get repealed. I’m just wondering what grounds SRAM is going to use. It just seems weird for a brand to complain about sports rules because it’s going to hurt their bottom line. I’d much rather see the riders union or the riders themselves go after the UCI because they’re discriminating body sizes.
3 Likes
“The maximum gear ratio limitation aims to limit the speed reached in competition. It has been proven that the very high speeds reached by riders today are a risk factor for their safety.”
What part of “race” did they not understand?
2 Likes
And I’d like the see the evidence that proves the “very high speeds” are a factor, but what qualifies as “very high speed”? 100 KPH? 80? 50? 30?
2 Likes
It’s not a women’s issue. It’s a cyclists issue.
Joe
2 Likes
Ok, I’m not a racer, but I don’t get it. UCI places a limit on maximum rollout, not on the number of teeth in your cassette. Regardless of whether this new rule has actual benefits, can’t you just use a smaller chainring?
Big competitive advantage for SRAM, smaller cog + smaller chainring = massive weight saving compared to Shimano! (yeah, here I am getting sarcastic, sorry)
UCI has (had?) similar restrictions on gearing used by youth, which is why we have “junior cassettes” like the awesome 14-28 Shimano 11sp cassette (no sarcasme this time, I love this one esp. when modified to a 14-34 for gravel and audax).
Which was also extremely unfair as Juniors had to race this gearing in adult races. If it was only for junior race’s, ehhh ok. But you are then the one kid (who already get treaded like crap in mens race’s) spinning a billion rpm while everyone is chilling.
4 Likes
The issue is that currently all SRAM cassettes are mono blocks that start with a 10tooth cog. So to hit the max rollout, SRAM needs to redesign their cassettes to start with a 11 tooth. But since the cassettes are mono blocks, this isn’t a simple process.
1 Like
The rule is totally without merit & the UCI’s behaviour on a regular basis is abhorrent, but I cant see SRAM winning this.
Many sports have equipment restrictions added or tweaked between seasons and this is no different.
Unless there is a smoking gun somewhere, with evidence of this rule being brought in either at Shimano’s request or invoked by someone who has financial ties to Shimano. That would be a totally different complaint by SRAM.
But couldn’t they just use a smaller front chainring to achieve the legal ratio? A 49t front should be legal to use. Yes, it’s not ideal but it’s not like SRAM has no current inventory of legal equipment.
This is what I was thinking. Unless they can show that the rule is specifically written to target SRAM, or that Shimano is secretly funding the rule changes, I don’t see what grounds SRAM has to stop it. But hey, maybe the fact they use54x11 in the rule shows that Shimano has had some pull, and that’s why SRAM are taking them to court.
Unfortunately, out of all the new rule changes, the gearing one is probably one of the easier for the UCI to defend. And for everybody saying, “it’s a race, how can you restrict the speed?” NASCAR and I’m pretty sure F1 has made rule changes that limit the speed of cars. I’m not saying I agree. And anybody can see that gearing restrictions won’t for a second change how fast riders descend. I’m just saying this won’t be the first time a governing board has tried to slow down a race in the name of safety.
2 Likes
So Shimano’s rollout will be 10.46m (54-11) and SRAM’s will be 10.44m (49-10)? Their cadence difference will be 0.2%. Cadence will have to be 120.3rpm vs 120rpm at ~80kph??? Is this what the lawsuit is about?