Another Day, Another UCI Rule: The Curious Case of Gearing Limits
The UCI is testing a new gearing rule that could ban SRAM's 10T cog in pro racing. We break down the new rule, its impact on the peloton, and why SRAM is in a bind.
Just when the cycling world finished collectively scratching its head over new handlebar width regulations, the UCI has decided to stir the pot once more. In what’s becoming a month of bubble-bursting equipment crackdowns, cycling’s governing body has unveiled a trial for updated gearing limitations—a move that seems surgically targeted to disrupt one of the sport's biggest innovators and render its signature 10-tooth cog obsolete in the pro peloton.
This isn't a distant threat. The trial phase for this new rule could begin as early as August of this year, packing significant implications for SRAM and its sponsored teams just as the season hits its stride.
The Rule, The Numbers, and The Oddly Specific Target
On the surface, the rule sounds technical and innocuous. The UCI will begin testing a maximum gear ratio equivalent to a 54x11 combination, which caps development at 10.46 meters gained per single revolution of the cranks.
The immediate question is: who does this actually affect? The answer, curiously, seems to be "pretty much just SRAM." Both Shimano and Campagnolo have built their 12- and 13-speed road groupsets around cassettes that start with an 11-tooth small cog. They could roll up to the start line tomorrow and be perfectly compliant.
SRAM, however, is in a very different position. Their entire X-Range gearing philosophy, a cornerstone of their AXS road groupsets, is predicated on the use of a smaller 10-tooth cog. This innovation allows for smaller chainrings and a wider overall gear range, a design that has been ridden to victory in countless races. Under the proposed 10.46-meter limit, a standard 50x10 top gear would be illegal. Even some of the "pro-only" massive chainrings, like a 54T, would be non-compliant when paired with that 10T cog.
SRAM's Unenviable Predicament
This new regulation puts SRAM in a strategic bind with no easy solutions. To bring its teams into compliance, a few scenarios could play out, none of them ideal:
- The Mechanical Lockout: Team mechanics could be forced to physically lock out the 10T cog on existing cassettes, effectively turning a 12-speed drivetrain into a less efficient 11-speed one.
- A Pivot in Production: SRAM could develop and manufacture entirely new cassettes that start with an 11T cog, a costly and time-consuming reaction to a rule that may not even be permanent.
- The Chainring Shuffle: They could design new, smaller chainrings (like a 49T or 48T) to pair with the 10T cog, which would bring the final gear ratio into compliance but would negate some of the efficiency arguments for running larger chainrings in the first place.
The irony, as noted by some in the cycling community, is that the recent trend of massive 54T and even 62T chainrings was partly driven by pro teams wanting to avoid using the 10T cog on long, flat stages, citing drivetrain inefficiency at such extreme chain angles. Now, a rule ostensibly aimed at top-end speed might force them back into less optimal gearing setups across the board.
The Million-Dollar Question: Why?
As with many UCI technical bulletins, the motivation behind the rule is not immediately clear, leaving the cycling world to speculate.
Is it a safety measure designed to limit the frankly terrifying top speeds seen on Grand Tour descents? That’s a plausible argument. Or is it an attempt to enforce equipment parity, creating a standardized top gear across all manufacturers? Perhaps.
Or, is this simply the UCI being the UCI? The organization has a long history of implementing rules that feel like solutions in search of a problem. Without a clear and present danger posed by the 10T cog, this move feels less like a thoughtful regulation and more like an attempt to meddle with the natural course of equipment innovation.
For now, the peloton waits. The trial period will reveal how strictly the rule will be enforced and how SRAM will choose to navigate this regulatory headache. But one thing is certain: a rule that disproportionately affects a single manufacturer is bound to create more questions than answers.
