![\"YouTube](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/hqdefault.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
Buried deep in one of the longest press releases<\/a> I\u2019ve ever seen, with an unrelated title about cycling initiatives in India (and updates on Belarus & Russian athletes), the UCI has announced an update to the maximum cycling computer size. This new policy will cap the maximum size of bike computers going forward, from January 2028.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the full text of that relevant section:<\/p>\n \u201cThe UCI has also decided to update the article concerning on-board technologies. The maximum dimensions permitted for bike computers will be limited to 126 \u00d7 71mm, corresponding to the largest products currently available on the market. This limitation will enter into force on 1 January 2028. This decision was taken in light of the impact of on-board technologies on the cognitive load experienced by riders. Several studies have shown that the increasing volume of data available to riders during competition can contribute to an increased cognitive workload, a key factor in the occurrence of accidents. Limiting the size of bike computers is intended to prevent an excessive increase in the amount of data available during races, which could significantly compromise rider safety. Members of the UCI Management Committee also emphasised the importance of engaging with the relevant stakeholders to gain a better understanding of how riders interact with the various data streams available to them during competition.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So in short, the new size limit comes into effect January 1st, 2028, and is 1mm larger than the Wahoo ACE<\/a>, the current largest cycling GPS on the market (it\u2019s roughly the size, weight, and aerodynamic properties of a brick). They say they are doing this for safety reasons to reduce accidents, due to \u201cincreased cognitive workload\u201d.<\/p>\n But\u2026man, the UCI tries so hard to make up excuses for its rules. And certainly, since the very next paragraph discusses its recent sprawling legal loss to SRAM on this front<\/a>, it had to be aware that it now *legally* needs actual relevant and situation-appropriate evidence before making up rule changes.<\/p>\n Instead, I wish the UCI had just simply said \u201cbig computers above this size are simply stupid looking\u201d. In the same way, they do that for plenty of other cycling-related rules, such as sock height.<\/p>\n The problem with shifting this to safety is that one would actually argue a larger screen size probably *increases* safety. It\u2019s simply easier to glance\/see the data fields on a larger display than a tiny Edge 130-class\/sized device<\/a> that Garmin refuses to update, but pro teams still use. So if the rule was really about safety, we\u2019d actually have a minimum screen size spec. And we\u2019d have a rule about where the device was placed on TT bikes (such that it wasn\u2019t behind someone\u2019s chin point, making it nearly impossible to see).<\/p>\n Likewise, if the rule was about safety, we\u2019d have rules about distracting features on the bike computer, or we\u2019d have locked-down modes like some orienteering\/adventure races here (these modes allow for data recording, but no access to the data itself during the event<\/a>). But again, this isn\u2019t about safety. It\u2019s about whatever else the UCI is trying to achieve here.<\/p>\n And in fact, the UCI seems to freely admit here it hasn\u2019t done any actual safety work here, as it says it wants to engage with the stakeholders to determine if there\u2019s anything distracting here:<\/p>\n \u201cMembers of the UCI Management Committee also emphasised the importance of engaging with the relevant stakeholders to gain a better understanding of how riders interact with the various data streams available to them during competition.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Why then would you create a rule before you decide if a rule was needed? Again, didn\u2019t you just lose what might have been one of the most consequential sport-rules cases ever, for this very thing? (That case loss has massive\/sprawling effects for other sports<\/a>, including things like swimsuits in swimming, and every other sport federations).<\/p>\n Look, I personally don\u2019t have an issue with limiting the size of bike computers for aesthetic reasons. Or heck, even saying that if a Wahoo ACE broke off a mount, went flying, and hit someone in the head, it could do serious damage. But saying that someone\u2019s overall device size (not screen size) of a bike computer is a safety concern because it\u2019s somehow distracting? C\u2019mon, do better.<\/p>\n With that, thanks for reading!<\/p>\n Found This Post Useful? Support The Site!<\/p>\n At the end of the day, I\u2019m an athlete just like you looking for the most detail possible on a new purchase. These posts generally take a lot of time to put together, so if you’re shopping for the Wahoo ELEMNT ACE or Garmin Edge 1050 or any other accessory items, please consider using the affiliate links below! As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn\u2019t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot.<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/AceRoam.jpeg\" "\\"AceRoam.jpeg\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BiggestBikeComputers.png\" "\\"BiggestBikeComputers.png\\"")
(I took this photo 18 months ago as part of my Wahoo ACE review<\/a>. Absolute Cycling has since gone out of business, but JESPR<\/a> appears to still be around, and would seem to be slightly bigger than the Wahoo ACE, though on paper says they\u2019re only 122m long by 69.5mm wide. The Edge 1050 is 118.5m x 60.2mm)<\/p>\n\n