The UCI is set to use funds from the SafeR safety project to fight a legal battle against SRAM, creating an extraordinary scenario in which some teams will effectively be funding litigation against their own sponsor.
The dispute surrounds the UCI’s plans to limit the size of gears used in races. Believing such a measure could improve rider safety, the sport’s governing body was set to test a Maximum Gear Ratio Standard in 2025 but SRAM launched legal action and scored a victory through anti-trust proceedings lodged with the Belgian Competition Authority.
The UCI had already announced its intention to appeal, and Cyclingnews can now reveal how it will fund this process and and how the jurisdiction of the case has divided cycling’s stakeholders.
According to a summary note obtained by Cyclingnews and confirmed by multiple sources, UCI President David Lappartient asked for the sports’ stakeholders to support legal proceedings during a recent meeting of the SafeR Supervisory Board. The note does not specify what steps are to be taken beyond ‘legal action’ but in theory the UCI is able to appeal the BCA’s verdict.
Cyclingnews understands the UCI has ring-fenced €300,000 from SafeR’s budget for its legal battle with SRAM and the Belgian Competition Authority. It is unclear how this will impact SafeR’s budget and work to improve safety in pro cycling.
According to the note seen by Cyclingnews, the lack of unity amongst stakeholders sparked Lappartient to propose that UCI world also take over management of SafeR, reducing the other stakeholders’ commitments and influence. This will be discussed at the next UCI Management Committee in the summer.
The background
The dispute concerning the Maximum Gear Ratio Standard began after the UCI announced plans to limit the maximum gear ratio of the chainring and cassette to a distance covered per pedal revolution of 10.46 meters, or an equivalent of 54×11. The test was due to be carried out at the end of season Tour of Guangxi WorldTour race in China.
The UCI’s Maximum Gear Ratio Standard was based on tyre size of 28mm. However, teams often use bigger tyres and so would fall foul of the rule if they used 30mm tyres and a gear of 54×11. The implementation of the ruling, as originally proposed in 2025, would have only been enforced based on gear ratios, however, with no consideration given to tyre size.
The SRAM cassette is designed around a 10-tooth smallest sprocket and so when used with a 54-tooth chainring, would not respect the Maximum Gear Ratio Standard. Using a smaller chainring would leave the SRAM-equipped teams at a disadvantage, as would somehow manually blocking off the ten-tooth sprocket, something which could be achieved in a similar manner to how Lidl-Trek modded their derailleurs to make a 13-speed setup 12-speed for Paris-Roubaix.
Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe, Movistar, Lidl-Trek, NSN, EF Education-EasyPost, Uno X Mobility, Decathlon CMA CGM, Pinarello-Q36.5, Visma-Lease a Bike and CANYON//SRAM zondacrypto all used SRAM components in 2025, with many of the teams considered as interested parties in the BCA verdict.
Initially, all SafeR stakeholders, as well as SRAM, approved the Guangxi tests. However, SRAM later announced a legal challenge to the UCI’s proposed rule via the Belgian Competition Authority in September, claiming the rules unfairly disadvantaged SRAM-equipped teams as well as disparaged SRAM in the road drivetrain market.
“This protocol penalizes and discourages innovation and puts our riders and teams at a competitive disadvantage,” SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg said in a statement sent to Cyclingnews at the time.
The BCA ruled that the UCI’s Maximum Gear Ratio Standard did not meet the required conditions of objectivity and transparency and “generated disproportionate negative effects on a sports equipment supplier, namely SRAM.”
Now the UCI plans to appeal against the ruling, using funds from the SafeR project – and therefore money directly invested by SRAM-sponsored teams – to fund the legal battle.
The UCI has not responded to Cyclingnews’ request for comment. SRAM declined to comment on the matter.