The UCI isn’t giving up on its fight over gear ratio limits.
In a press release today, cycling’s governing body confirmed it will appeal to Belgium’s highest court after losing the latest round in its legal battle with component manufacturer SRAM.
The dispute centres on a UCI-led Maximum Gear Ratio Test Protocol, which would limit bikes to a 54×11 top gear.
The testing protocol was introduced at select races in 2025 following recommendations from SafeR, the sport’s safety body. It involved measuring riders’ maximum gear ratios and gathering feedback on whether restrictions could help reduce speeds and improve safety in the peloton.
The trial quickly ran into opposition from SRAM, which argued that the protocol effectively favoured certain drivetrain configurations and risked distorting competition in the cycling components market.
“The protocol forces SRAM to mechanically disable its 10-tooth cog, reducing gear options and placing SRAM-equipped riders at a competitive disadvantage,” the brand stated at the time.
The American manufacturer challenged the measures before the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), which ultimately sided with SRAM and ordered the UCI to suspend the test programme.
“The procedures for determining technical standards enacted for this purpose, as well as the related tests, must meet essential conditions of proportionality, objectivity, transparency and non-discrimination in view of the economic consequences of these standards,” the BCA stated.
“They cannot result in an undue restriction of competition between sports equipment suppliers.”
In turn, the UCI appealed that decision, arguing the protocol was a safety measure rather than a competition issue. However, the Brussels Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal, finding that the UCI had not sufficiently justified the proposed restrictions or demonstrated that they were necessary and proportionate to achieve the stated goal of improving rider safety.
Now, the UCI has confirmed it intends to keep fighting.
In a statement issued following a meeting of its Management Committee, the governing body reiterated the purpose of the programme, stating: “Recommended by SafeR, the maximum gear ratio test was intended to gather riders’ views on the relevance of introducing gear ratio limitations in professional road cycling as a means of improving safety.”
Despite the latest setback, the governing body is not backing down.
“In light of the Brussels Court of Appeal’s decision, and concerned by both the very low threshold applied by the BCA for imposing interim measures and the limited scope of the Court of Appeal’s review in the appeal proceedings, the Management Committee confirmed the UCI’s intention to lodge an appeal before the Belgian Court of Cassation.”
The Court of Cassation is Belgium’s highest court and reviews whether the law has been correctly applied by lower courts.
