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.
1 Like
Hereās a gift article for you from Escape Collective: UCI goes on the defensive and questions SRAMās motives in legal action curtesy of Escape Collective
My favorite line from this article: The press release accused the American component manufacturer of āundermining the necessary unity among cycling stakeholders, which is essential for progress toward a safer sport.ā
Translation - SRAM wonāt kiss the ring like Shimanoā¦
This will all come down to interpretation of anti-trust laws and what SRAM can prove. Itās 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 āThis is going to really hurt SRAM in the road marketā. UCI will have to prove itās all about rider safety and the business impact to SRAM is just an unfortunate byproduct. UCI isnāt required to make rules that are friendly to business, but Iād 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.
2 Likes
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
1 Like
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 āDisadvantages SRAM-equipped riders in professional cycling eventsā. An obvious solution immediately for those riders would be to stop using SRAMā¦. not the outcome I expect SRAM are going to want to hear.
To me the interesting question (that I donāt have an answer to) is standing: Why does SRAM have standing? I donāt 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 doesnāt have sole control here.
I donāt 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 UCIās 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.
1 Like
This can be adjudicated with data. Pedaling ā putting power down. One of The Escape Collectiveās 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 (Iām 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 isnāt hard to do and should have been done by the UCI.
2 Likes
2x yep, but not if they want to run 1x, need an even number of teeth.
1 Like
Any sort of pointed middlefinger towards the fart of a union the UCI is, has my deepest sympathy.
1 Like
And that can be made up by running a 32mm in the rear vs a 30.
1 Like
One important update: it seems that Shimano is also supremely unhappy with the UCI, rumor has it that their next-gen DuraAce groupset will also have a 10-tooth cog. Then they will run into the same issues as SRAM. The plot thickens.
3 Likes
The plot would thicken even more if this rule is codified, and the UCI did actual roll-out tests at the start / end of a race. Even if a setup was nominally compliant from a gearing perspective, but actual tire diameter could put a rider out of compliance
Yup. (Un)intended consequences. I reckon the UCI can make a similarly inane argument that narrower tires = less grip = less speed = safer.
And the UCI seems to be terrible at math. Imagine if they had allowed one additional tooth so that 55:11 = 5.0 = 50:10 would be legal. Not that their reasoning would make more sense, but at least itād be a tad more forward-thinking (in a backwards sort of way).