SRAM wins the legal battle against the UCI, and the limit on developments has no future

The legal battle between the UCI and SRAM has just entered a new decisive and, probably, definitive chapter. The Belgian courts have rejected the appeal filed by the UCI against the precautionary decision that had already suspended in 2025 the controversial test to limit maximum gear ratios in the professional peloton. This ruling not only represents a new victory for the American brand but also fundamentally questions the UCI's ability to impose technical regulations without consensus or sufficiently transparent processes.

The Belgian courts once again side with SRAM and leave the UCI with no room to impose its controversial gear limit

The Brussels Market Court has supported the position of the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA), the body that last October had already temporarily suspended the so-called “Maximum Gear Ratio Protocol,” the project promoted by the UCI to limit the gear ratios used by professional cyclists.

That proposal aimed to debut during the 2025 Tour of Guangxi and established a maximum ratio equivalent to a 54-tooth chainring combined with an 11-tooth sprocket. The problem was evident for SRAM. Its top-of-the-line RED AXS group uses a cassette with a minimum 10-tooth sprocket, which meant the system would be automatically penalized by the regulation.

RECOMENDADO

Van der Poel drops out of Nove Mesto at the last minute and there will be no showdown with Pidcock

"It is a trendsetter": looking for those responsible for the urine containers

Pidcock against the new generation of XCO: favorites for the Nove Mesto World Cup 2026

Cherry juice: the mysterious red drink that cyclists drink at the end of each stage

Crisis at Niner: its owner halts the brand while considering its future

He forgot to take off the ice vest and rode the entire time trial of the Giro with it, finishing ninth

From the very beginning, SRAM argued that this represented direct technical and commercial discrimination against its groups, in addition to indirectly conveying the idea that its products could be considered unsafe. The brand then decided to approach the Belgian competition authority, which ended up blocking the test just six days before its implementation.

That decision already set a huge precedent within professional sports. The BCA then recognized the UCI's right to work for the safety of the riders but questioned the way the regulation had been designed and approved. The Belgian body considered that the procedure did not guarantee basic principles such as proportionality, objectivity, transparency, or absence of discrimination among manufacturers.

The UCI reacted quickly by announcing a formal appeal and defending the legality of its initiative. Over the past few months, both parties have exchanged legal documentation in a process that, according to Cyclingnews, even included a 70-page appeal document submitted by the international body.

However, the new ruling from the Market Court once again aligns with the Belgian authority and leaves the UCI with virtually no legal recourse to recover the project in its current format.

The impact of this defeat goes far beyond the simple debate about chainrings, sprockets, or gear ratios. The decision now forces the UCI to rethink how it introduces future technical regulations within professional cycling and could open the door to much more participatory processes alongside teams, manufacturers, and industry bodies.

With this new judicial defeat, the project to limit gear ratios is practically buried as it was originally conceived. But above all, the case sets a precedent that could transform the way the UCI regulates technical material within professional cycling in the coming years.