Almost six months on since the Belgian Competition Authority blocked a proposed maximum gear ratio test at the Tour du Guangxi, the UCI has formally appealed that decision with arguments heard today at the Brussels Court of Appeal. A ruling is expected by May 20.
The case stems from a complaint by SRAM, which argued the proposed test would have had a disproportionate competitive impact on its drivetrain systems as the only manufacturer without a compliant combination, while also challenging the lack of transparency, consultation, process failures, and overall lack of evidence to support the UCI’s safety rationale.
Why the BCA’s SRAM ruling could redefine UCI governance
The level of detail in the landmark ruling is far broader than a simple gear limit rule, and the fallout could reshape the balance of power between the UCI, the industry, and teams.
At the heart of the dispute is SRAM’s one-piece cassettes featuring a 10-tooth smallest sprocket. The UCI had, effectively and for simplicity, proposed a 54×11 limit rather than relying on gear checks and roll-outs before races. But when used with a 54-tooth chainring, SRAM’s 10-tooth sprockets exceed the proposed limit. In practice, this would have forced SRAM-equipped riders to use smaller chainrings, leaving them without a directly comparable top gear to 54×11 within SRAM’s existing options and placing SRAM at a competitive disadvantage.
Ultimately, the proposed trial never happened, as the UCI was forced to back down on its plans in the wake of the BCA decision. Fast forward to today’s appeal, where the UCI, SRAM and the BCA all made arguments.
Did we do a good job with this story?
👍Yep
👎Nope