SRAM takes UCI to court in battle over gear restrictions via Escape Collective

[Bbt67]

@CaptainThunderpants

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

Tour of Switzerland is off the list of events then. Total nonsense, the UCI, not you. As you say or implied, much greater speeds than can be pushed through gearing, on a decent.

[AlphaDogCycling]

Here’s a gift article for you from Escape Collective: UCI goes on the defensive and questions SRAM’s motives in legal action curtesy of Escape Collective

My favorite line from this article: The press release accused the American component manufacturer of “undermining the necessary unity among cycling stakeholders, which is essential for progress toward a safer sport.”

[grwoolf]

@AlphaDogCycling

The press release accused the American component manufacturer of “undermining the necessary unity among cycling stakeholders, which is essential for progress toward a safer sport.”

Translation - SRAM won’t kiss the ring like Shimano…

This will all come down to interpretation of anti-trust laws and what SRAM can prove. It’s often a very fuzzy line between acceptable behavior and actions that are deemed illegal. It will probably come down to how careful the UCI was about avoiding/hiding the likely interaction with Shimano around this rule. All it will likely take is one dumb email along the lines of “This is going to really hurt SRAM in the road market”. UCI will have to prove it’s all about rider safety and the business impact to SRAM is just an unfortunate byproduct. UCI isn’t required to make rules that are friendly to business, but I’d bet it will be an issue if they worked closely with Shimano in this situation where there are only 2 dominant businesses in the market.

[SUZ18]

Could the fact that Shimmanio is a sponsor of UCI affect or change anything? Just curious. Cause that is kinda like if F1 was sponsored by Porsh

[G7NXX]

I am not sure if the UCI do have to prove its all about rider safety to be honest. All they need to show is that it was not done deliberately to financially benefit Shimano & that they as the UCI have the right to set the rules as they see fit.

If they are the sole authority for what rules are applied to UCI events, they dont have to justify this one.

SRAM also needs to be careful in its approach. One of their arguments is “Disadvantages SRAM-equipped riders in professional cycling events”. An obvious solution immediately for those riders would be to stop using SRAM…. not the outcome I expect SRAM are going to want to hear.

[OreoCookie]

@CaptainThunderpants

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?

To me the interesting question (that I don’t have an answer to) is standing: Why does SRAM have standing? I don’t know the answer, but there are plenty of instances where the UCI is in conflict with teams and individual athletes (anything related to doping), and the UCI doesn’t have sole control here.

I don’t know what options SRAM has, but many contracts contain arbitration clauses, which settle where and how conflicts are resolved. I have to imagine that contracts with the UCI contain clauses that regulate disputes.

Then the question is whether the contracts allow for SRAM to sue in order to adjudicate the dispute. If SRAM has standing, then it might very well matter what the UCI’s reasoning is.

Let us assume for a moment that the UCI has data showing that e. g. mandating new course rules and that they have not enforced existing course safety rules in pro races. And that they are coming up with safety rules that are easy-for-them, knowing that they will have no real-world effect. Pro sports leagues (the NFL comes to mind) have been sued in the past.

[OreoCookie]

@Bbt67

Tour of Switzerland is off the list of events then. Total nonsense, the UCI, not you. As you say or implied, much greater speeds than can be pushed through gearing, on a decent.

This can be adjudicated with data. Pedaling ≠ putting power down. One of The Escape Collective’s articles contains data by Dan Bingham. He looked at the speed distribution during five major races and determined the time a rider is gear limited for a 55:11 = 50:10 = 5.00 gear ratio at various cadences. At 120 rpm that was 1.1 %, at 130 rpm it shrank to 0.34 % (49 seconds, i. e. < 1 minute).

Importantly, this includes the time when riders do not put out any power. Once you only include the time riders put out any power, the amount of time lies between 0.27 % (120 rpm) and 0.008% (140 rpm).

Once you include power in that picture, IMHO all arguments for limitations disappear. For pros the average power in top gear at 75 km/h (= 120 rpm in 55:11 = 50:10) was around 80 W (I’m eyeballing the number, it is significantly below 100 W). At 130 rpm it looks like 60 W. Given that drag increases with the cube of velocity, these powers are insignificant.

Bingham also includes an analysis of the advantage conferred by larger gear rations during descents in the article.

The analysis seems very elementary. You could say that the amount of data he used is small and perhaps does not include sufficiently many different types of riders. But on the other hand, this type of analysis isn’t hard to do and should have been done by the UCI.