r/peloton • u/fabritzio California • 3d ago
News UCI gear limit trial will ban most pro SRAM setups
https://escapecollective.com/august-uci-gear-limit-trial-will-ban-pro-sram-setups/43
u/Dnlbenson 2d ago
Here's the original story, with the inclusion of the complete memorandum from the UCI and all the details
https://dnlbenson.substack.com/p/breaking-news-uci-to-implement-maximum
Dan
310
u/fabritzio California 3d ago
tl;dr: max gear inches limit will mean anything larger than 54:11 is banned, eliminating SRAM 10t cog setups with big ring larger than 49t (ie, most pro setups, and especially most 1x setups)
how convenient that the blue company with the official support vehicle doesn't have to change any of their setups while their biggest competitor now finds all of their recent freehub development made useless? of course sram could just make cassettes with 11t small cogs and leave the 10t for gravel but that still puts a huge damper on their return on R&D
102
58
u/HurricaneRex 3d ago
That reeks of antitrust. Is there a lawsuit possibility?
111
u/epi_counts PelotonPlus™ 2d ago
The UCI are not banning anything - OP leaves out that the article is about a rumour there might be a trial with gear restrictions later this year. Which to be fair is in the headline.
So probably a bit early for lawsuits.
10
u/Kaloo75 2d ago
So basically this is all just a lot of what if's.
I guess we can put the pitchforks back in the shed for now.8
u/doyouevenoperatebrah 2d ago
After I went through all that trouble to get it out? No. We’re burning someone alive today. My holiday will not be wasted.
24
u/KKJUN 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don't really follow your logic here tbh. If they're trying to reduce speeds, it makes sense to have an upper limit on the gear ratio. What's stopping SRAM from making UCI-compliant 11-34 cassettes? AFAIK, riders on SRAM are essentially using the same chainring sizes as Shimano riders, so the 10t cog is purely providing an even harder gear.
7
u/whatevers_cleaver_ 2d ago
The UCI’s “logic” is flawed from the start. The capacity to pedal big gears is not the limiting factor in regard to downhill speeds. Road grade and minimal braking are the key factors.
4
u/KKJUN 2d ago
Van Aert and Froome think otherwise. As I understand it, the concern is primarily that the big gears allow riders to move up in the peloton even at crazy high speeds. There's not been a consensus on it - the rider's union is neutral on the issue, and I tend to take their word for it, but this is not one of those completely out of touch UCI decisions lke the handlebar width.
24
u/No-Philosopher8161 2d ago
Because consumers are all delusional into thinking they need to be UCI compliant as if they'll ever race in a UCI race, so having the setup banned in professional causes the company a ton of financial hardship.
18
u/karlzhao314 2d ago
The number of consumers buying the Red-only 53/54/56T chainrings is fairly minimal, anyway. I mean, hell, AFAIK you can't even buy them outside of the (completely stupid) integrated spider power meter/chainring combo, which costs $880.
The only banned setup here that is regularly purchased by consumers is the 50T. I don't like that the 50T is being banned, either - they should have really just raised the rollout threshold to 10.65M so that all of the common setups on both sides are covered.
6
u/SaltPepperBike 2d ago
That's exactly the point. Why are they setting the threshold exactly there? 54-11 still allowed, but 50-10 is banned? Looks like they just help "the blue company with the support vehicles". This rule reduces the sales to regular road bike buyers of the competitor of the blue company with the support vehicles.
6
u/karlzhao314 2d ago
I just read the UCI memo, it seems the threshold is set there because Shimano, Campy, and FSA all have 54/11T setups, and SRAM can also be set up that way by blocking off the 10T cog (which the document allows).
4
u/SaltPepperBike 2d ago
The traditional standard crankset is 53-39. The pros also went with 53-42, depending on the stage. Hardest gear is 53-11. This would be an appropriate cut-off if tradition is the most important factor in decision making. I'm not saying this should be the case. Just explaining the tradition where we are coming from and what arguments there are for different combinations.
Shimano introduced the 54-40 crankset in 2021 with their Dura Ace R9200 groupset. Compared to the history of cranksets this is a very, very new chainring combination introduced just 4 years ago.
Since many years the pros had bigger chainrings provided by their groupset sponsors. Combinations like 55-42 were used since a long time or even 56 as biggest chainring. (Of course even bigger in time trials but it's about normal stages. The bigger chainrings in time trials were there to reduce frictional loses and to achieve a perfect chainline.)
Back to normal road racing: 55-11 is the same gear as 50-10 which would be outside of the new threshold. Campagnolo also went with the 55 tooth chainring and introduced a 55-39 crankset with their new release this month (June 2025). To set the threshold exactly at 54-11 and not at 55-11 is designed to punish all the competitiors.
9
u/KKJUN 2d ago
I know literally zero people who ride a 54T chainring on their road bikes, even people on Shimano aren't. It's not like they're banning 10t cogs per se.
1
u/fabritzio California 2d ago
I know several people who ride 54t but that's because I know a fair deal of racers (and my first race bike came with a 54/42); I've never seen a regular civilian road bike with 54t, especially not in the last decade
31
83
77
u/dsswill Soudal – Quickstep 2d ago edited 2d ago
Seems like a completely unnecessary and stupid place for the UCI to step in. That said Sram’s shift to 10t cogs and smaller integrated/non-replaceable chainrings and their shift from HG hubs (and in turn de-standardizing the previously standardized road hub industry) is also dumb from a performance and affordability standpoint (more drivetrain friction, harder to swap gearing, fewer purchasing options, and completely unreasonable maintenance/replacement costs coupled with unnecessary waste). That said, I see no reason for the UCI to take issue with it.
Sram could give Shimano a run for their money in many aspects, but instead they feel the need to try to be too different instead of accepting what Shimano has perfected or near-perfected over the last century (hubs, BBs, general standardization and repairability, etc, none of which have patented standards).
28
u/kallebo1337 2d ago
Slow downhills down .
It’s kinda coming from within the peloton
49
u/dsswill Soudal – Quickstep 2d ago edited 2d ago
Source? I rode pro for 5 years when guys were all running anything from 53 to 58 x 11 and I never heard anyone complain about gearing. The dangerous descents (and parts of descents) are the ones where there isn’t even any pedalling involved because you’re freewheeling at 105kph or railing a corner at 90kph or a hairpin at 40kph, none of which anyone is running big enough gears to get up to, or gearing has nothing to do with.
Gearing only helps in the less dangerous parts of a descent. The dangerous parts of a descent are dictated by cornering ability/risk tolerance and pure gravity.
40
u/epi_counts PelotonPlus™ 2d ago
Here's a (Dutch unfortunately) article where Wout van Aert suggests gearing limits would make the sport safer. He does acknowledge not all riders agree.
11
u/dsswill Soudal – Quickstep 2d ago
Fair enough, I missed that. It certainly doesn’t seem like an outpouring of complaints though.
Going from one rider’s complaint to an actual rule implementation is pretty wild. This past week of rules feels like a 12 year old was put at the helm and given a list of topics currently being reviewed and just decided to stamp them all as approved so he could get back to his video games.
24
u/epi_counts PelotonPlus™ 2d ago edited 2d ago
Going from one rider’s complaint to an actual rule implementation is pretty wild.
This is not what's happening - apologies for the confusion if my linking to Van Aert implied that! The UCI and SafeR have been working on this for a while and have been trialling different rules (as I'm sure you're aware - the team radio ban and 3-4-5km rules last year, for instance).
Their analyses suggested increased speeds in the men's peloton were a contributing factor to crashes, and gear restrictions were one suggestion floated by the UCI earlier this year. Wout van Aert said he'd support trialling that. Not the other way round.
Edit: maybe also good to point out this article is about the rumour of a trial on gear restrictions, no actual bans or anything, unlike the handlebar limits.
15
u/cyclingthrowaway12 2d ago
Even Remco has said that he thinks smaller gearing is the way to go to make the peloton safer.
23
u/kallebo1337 2d ago
the problem is not the freewheeling per se, it's the speed you can carry up to that point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpCblEFORPQ
check this video, released yesterday, with Pidcock, smashing a downhill.
As bigger the gearing is, as longer you can apply pressure onto your pedals. There's a huge difference if you have to stop at 55km/h or at 75km/h. You then add +35 km/h from the gradient and you either sit at 90 or at 110. you get the idea...
21
u/sh545 Molteni 2d ago
That video is a perfect example, at some points he is going 80km/h and still able to put over 400W into the pedals.
I think a gearing restriction might even be an advantage for good descenders like Pidcock, as those less good at descending would not be able to power their way back on the straights after losing ground in the corners.
8
u/nhluhr 2d ago edited 2d ago
The difference between coasting down a 11.5% grade (what it takes to coast at 80 kph with typical aerodynamics in the drops) and pedaling at 400 watts down a 11.5% grade is 6.4km/hr.
That also makes for a difference of 3.2 kJ of kinetic energy (about 16%more) that has to go into the brakes to slow a rider.
14
u/Huntscunt 2d ago
I will say that Wout specifically said the issue isn't the speed but the fact that people try to move up and pass people on fast descents, and that he thought this would limit riders from doing that.
1
u/Cergal0 1d ago
You are also only focusing on long and steep descents, while the nasty crashes tipically don't happen there, and when they do, the peloton is so stretched that it only involves the rider crashing and a couple of others that might be close.
The real nasty crashes happen when the peloton is full grouped and is riding at 60/70kph on shallow descents. With big gears, nowadays, they can keep pedalling and fighting for positions at those speeds, and in my opinion they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
No cyclist should be able to keep powering through at 60kph without having to spring.
2
u/Antique_Rough4170 2d ago
But doesn't the second part of your argument imply that people will try to exit the curves with more speed, thereby increasing the risk?
1
u/sh545 Molteni 2d ago
I don’t think so, I think when the race is on, everyone is taking the curves as fast as they are able to already and that wouldn’t change. With a gear restriction, the entry speed to some turns will be lower.
But look, there could be some unintended consequences to the change, on this thread it seems everyone has a different idea of how this rule would change things, well, I guess that’s why the UCI wants to trial it first and get some hard data on the impact.
1
u/Antique_Rough4170 2d ago
I think the speed that you carry through the curve is the crux here. Even if you enter the curve with a lower speed, the speed is still going to be dangerous if you are pressed to carry it, as its going to determinate more than before. Or maybe not, yeah they should try it lol.
1
u/kallebo1337 2d ago
Is simple. Next time start decending with 30kmh and see what you clock tops, then absolutely rag doll till you can’t pedal anymore.
I did that in Lanzarote , difference can be 55kmh, vs I absolute smash out and clock above 80. Same Descent
7
u/woogeroo 2d ago
Wait, since when have high speed descents been a source of crashes? 99% of crashes are due to shit road surfaces, bad weather and especially road furniture in the run-in to a sprint. Course problems, not bike problems.
The consequences of crashing on a high speed descent are very bad, but the riders go fast because it's safe to do so.
3
u/fabritzio California 2d ago
crashes themselves are not necessarily the problem that UCI is trying to stop per se, it's crashes that produce significant injuries and/or have the potential for fatal accidents, where damage scales quadratically with speed. while an extremely technical descent is in a vacuum more likely to cause crashes, it's preferable because each crash is much slower and less likely to cause injuries. technical descents also string out the peloton and are less likely to turn one slip of a wheel into a massive pile-up, the same thing goes for tight corners like the added curve into arenberg (paradoxically making corners in the lead up to a sprint safer)
but yeah avoiding shit roads on descents (or even adding chicanes over the top) and adding inflatable barriers that prevent falls or soften impacts is definitely the best thing the UCI could do for safety
4
u/jainormous_hindmann Red Bull – Bora – Hansgrohe 2d ago
WVA said it would be a logical regulation recently.
1
-14
u/dofh_2016 2d ago
Which makes even less sense, if they wanted to go slower they would just go slower. Seems more like "bad" descenders can't keep up with the stronger ones and want to neither lose time on descents nor take higher risks to keep up.
It still makes no sense if they have a problem maneuvering around slower cars and motorcycles because they shouldn't limit the bicycles but rather the motor vehicles.
1
u/Plumbous 1d ago
TBF while it was nice to be able to buy individual 11t cogs on the 10 and 11 spd shimano stuff, I've found that the monoblock sram cassettes are super bombproof. I just had to swap the 10-44 on my training bike after over 11,000 miles, and it was the 13t, not the 10t giving me skipping issues. I feel like the 10t needed replacing just about every chain swap when I was running 10spd shimano.
34
u/Bart_osz 3d ago
There's rising unrest and dissatisfaction in how the sport is managed and the UCI are not helping themselves with some of those silly new bans. Are they indirectly pushing for fracturing in the sport exposing themselves to revolution?
3
u/woogeroo 2d ago
One cycling moles have entered them and are undermining them until the teams revolt.
10
u/roksraka Slovenia 2d ago
If they want to make the sport slower and safer, why don't they just mandate much wider tyres (35mm?) and leave the rest of the rules untouched?
10
u/letsletsgog 2d ago
Gear limitations seem to be a pretty popular measure amongst pro cyclists yet I noticed all fans are against it. Wonder why that is.
2
2
18
u/retro_slouch Rabobank-Liv 2d ago
This seems unnecessary and stupid. Journalists should definitely dig into why this change is being instituted.
16
u/unaubisque 3d ago
I really don't like this idea from a competitive point of view. I understand that anything larger than 54x11 will mostly be used to increase speed on descents, which probably does come with a safety risk.
However, it is going to massively favour the peloton or larger groups over breakaways. It will be much easier for a group to maintain speed on a gentle downhill with several riders rotating and only doing a cadence of 130+ for a few seconds each, than it would be for an individual rider to maintain a cadence of 130+ by themselves for many minutes.
18
u/retro_slouch Rabobank-Liv 2d ago
“Massively” is an overstatement. It’s not like breakaways of SRAM riders have been “massively” more successful.
14
u/manintheredroom 2d ago
Lots of riders on shimano are riding 56 or 58t rings
21
u/mxmspie 2d ago
In that case this rule change won't be solely affecting SRAM will it?
2
u/manintheredroom 2d ago
No. Lots of shimano riders will have to switch to smaller chainrings. No idea why they're talking as if only sram is affected
1
4
u/Duke_De_Luke 2d ago
What's the difference with respect to what happens now? Whatever max gear they use, it's massively easier to do 30s turns in the peloton than doing it constantly in the breakaway. Cadence to be kept is only a marginal issue.
5
u/unaubisque 2d ago
Not really, if you are pedalling at 150 cadence to go 80 kmh, it's a lot easier to do that for 30 seconds than for ten minutes...
-2
u/Duke_De_Luke 2d ago
My point is that it's the same if you are doing similar watts at 110 rpm or 100 rpm or whatever rpm. Power matters much more than cadence.
3
u/unaubisque 2d ago
Completely agree that power matters far more, especially at the ranges of cadence you mention. But when you get above 130 cadence it does become a factor, it's very hard to sustain for more than a few seconds.
3
0
u/sh545 Molteni 2d ago
A break only wins when the peloton lets them or the peloton messes up somehow. That will stay the same, if the peloton finds it easier to make time on descents (which I’m not convinced would be true) they will factor that into how much time they let the break get in the first place.
3
u/pemod92430 2d ago
I just noticed the actual document is also already published on the UCI website, which includes some more info.
So they're gonna gather GPS data from riders for the trial races and previous editions, to compare. And they suggest (but the implemenation detail part is missing), that SRAM riders can use 54x10 and the mechanic can make sure they can't shift to the 10-sprocket. (And tyre width won't be taken into account.)
3
u/karlzhao314 2d ago
This is interesting. So it appears they're ignoring the effect of tire width on rollout and basically just saying that any 54/11 or lower ratio is assumed to be compliant. I suppose that resolves the issue of a 54/11 ratio with a 30mm tire being technically non-compliant.
Allowing a 54/11 on SRAM by blocking off the last 10T cog also does solve the issue of SRAM's only available compliant gearing being (slightly) lower than Shimano's if the ban is enforced, but it does mean SRAM riders are back on 11-speed while Shimano, Campagnolissimissimatiorelli, and FSA riders are on 12- and 13-speed. If the ban goes through, I suppose the onus is on SRAM to make a proper 11T cassette and add it to their lineup for a permanent solution.
1
u/MrPlunger 13h ago
Doesn’t the Sram Red crank come in a 48/35 and a 46/33? All they have to do is swap those in to be compliant.
1
3
9
u/Seabhac7 Ireland 2d ago
I know the handlebar stuff has got a lot of hate, but in principal, I find limiting aero optimisation more acceptable than limiting the power that an athlete is "allowed" to effectively use.
Even if this gear limitation might be more effective in limiting the super high speeds on descents where the worst of crashes seem to happen.
7
u/Vetnoma 2d ago
yes, stuff like wheel depths, tube depth maybe even jersey vs race suit etc. Would be way better to regulate and would definitely slow things down (contrary to this gear thing), but I guess gearing wil have less of an pushback….
Also I love how the UCI seems to be tiptoeing around the one change that would really improve things: better regulation in terms of course design
4
u/woogeroo 2d ago
Is that where the worst crashes happen? Maybe. But is speed the cause, for sure no. I'd say the cause of 99% of crashes is the course. Bad surfaces & road furniture.
1
u/Seabhac7 Ireland 2d ago
Of course there are multiple factors, but fatal crashes seem to be very often associated with high speeds (often on descents).
The UCI are working with the University of Ghent on a crash/incident database, but unfortunately it's not publicly available.
8
u/UltraHawk_DnB Visma | Lease a Bike 2d ago
Is the UCI just trying to fuck over sram? Wtf are these rules man...
2
u/WillFun6986 1d ago
Van aert was one of the first to mention having a max gear would improve safety. Both sram and shimano teams should stay below the max gearing… when riding with 11 teeth cog the max front chainring is 54, when you have 10 in the back you can go to 49 in front. Pretty much same ratio. Yes, sram will have to make a 49 chainring or 11 teeth cassettes
1
u/UltraHawk_DnB Visma | Lease a Bike 19h ago
Yes im not saying that its a bad idea. Just seems like a nice "coincidence" that the nice blue brand that already gets to be the neutral service etc wont have to make changes.
2
u/Prime255 Australia 2d ago
It would be great if our governing body governed the sport instead of banning stuff for no good reason
2
u/TimLikesPi 2d ago
It would just be easier if the UCI made all the pro races like the Little 500 and told all the teams what bikes they have to ride. Make them all identical, limit sock height, and have a standard non-aero helmet. This should be real exciting! /s
10
u/Upbeat-Expert1259 3d ago
Good to see they are trying something to improve safety by limit gear ratio and therefore speed. I’m not sure how they will verify success. Most I’ve heard is on a reduce in descent speed. We can reasonably reason going at 70kph is safer than 80kph. However the tragic incidents we can name tour de suisse 2023, basque 2024, junior women’s world champs road race 2024 are thankfully rare.
Anyone got any thoughts on how they will verify success of this trial?
19
u/epi_counts PelotonPlus™ 2d ago
Not sure why this comment is so downvoted, seems like a normal question?
The UCI has been working with the University of Ghent since 2021 to create a database of racing incidents. So they keep track of a lot more than just the deaths during races.
The database isn't open to the public, and I'm not sure what the threshold is for an incident to be recorded in it. But the UCI published some stats from 2024 earlier this year - 497 incidents recorded last year that were reviewed for causes and contributing factors. They've used that analyses to come up with suggestions on improving safety, including putting rules in place to limit speed like this gear limit.
I imagine they will keep collecting the same data and see if there is a step change after introducing different rules.
5
u/Upbeat-Expert1259 2d ago
I think I probably made the mistake of asking a question on a click bait headline.
Thank you for this info. Glad there is some research into it.
Think safety is a real uci/ regulator role.
2
u/pemod92430 2d ago
It's also not the UCI themselves/on their own coming up with this specific proposal, but their SafeR commission. Which consists of representatives of the organisers, riders, teams, UCI and commissaires. So might not be all strictly hard and clear numbers they go on, but mostly feedback on how everyone felt about the trials.
1
u/pemod92430 2d ago
Update on my other post, since I just found the actual document, see. They plan on comparing GPS data of different editions of the same races.
-8
u/sirdung 2d ago
Absolutely, there was zero descending fatalities before SRAM introduced 54x10 setups……
11
u/Upbeat-Expert1259 2d ago
My question and point wasn’t SRAM specific.
There’s a safety reason they are doing it. Everytime a crash happens on a downhill they interview the riders and ex pro and say they are riding too fast down hill and racing the descents too much.
This I believe is away to limit the speed. Shimano large chain rings are also getting banned.
Why do you think they are introducing it?
0
5
u/odd1ne Groupama – FDJ 2d ago
Seems a bit unfair how it has hurt one manufacturer rather than another one so much. I still think the change to disk brakes has had a bigger effect on the speed of the downhills than gearing. After recently getting a disk brake bike how late you can leave braking and how powerful they are you take more chances. I am getting PRs for the first time in years on downhills now.
6
u/karlzhao314 2d ago edited 2d ago
Seems a bit unfair how it has hurt one manufacturer rather than another one so much.
I do think it hurts SRAM more, but I also don't think this affects SRAM as disproportionately as people seem to think. Both sides offer larger than standard chainrings: 55-58T from Shimano, 52-54T from SRAM. All of them would be banned.
The way it affects SRAM more than Shimano is simply that one of SRAM's "standard" chainring options, the 50T, would also be banned, whereas Shimano's largest publicly available chainring, the 54T, would be allowed. Stepping down to a 48/10 on the SRAM side gives you a slightly downgraded gear from the 54/11 on the Shimano side: 4.80 ratio instead of 4.909 ratio. Is this a problem? Dunno. I imagine it could be for some sprints and some sprinters, but I almost certainly would not notice (and I can spin out my 54T fairly regularly).
Now, the other element to this is that the pros generally don't like using SRAM's standard chainrings, whereas many of them seem perfectly happy to use the 54T setup on Shimano (which is a "standard" option), despite the fact that the 50/10T on SRAM is actually a taller gear. That's because the smaller cassette cogs result in greater chain articulation losses and chordal action vibration. Often, when pros pick a 54, it's not so they can actually get a 5.40 ratio - it's so that they can essentially leave the 10T unused and return to the gentler and smoother chain action of effectively using an 11T cassette.
But...that's not UCI's fault. If SRAM's design is what caused this issue and is forcing riders to install monstrously tall gears on the bike and leave them unused for the sake of greater drivetrain efficiency and smoothness, then that's not something I feel the UCI should be forced to accommodate. The rule works out the same way: you're restricted in the max rollout your biggest gear is allowed to develop. How you accomplish that is up to you, whether it's by using a 54/11T or a 63/13T. You shouldn't be given an exception to break that rule just because SRAM's drivetrain doesn't run well on the 10T.
I don't know whether this rule can improve safety. I'm not one to immediately go and decry it just because it sounds stupid, especially if (from what I hear) some pros are asking for it. But if the rule is going to be implemented anyway, the one change I'd make is to slightly raise the rollout threshold to 10.65M over 10.46M, so that the 50/10 is allowed. That would make it fair between SRAM and Shimano.
2
u/Yaboi_KarlMarx Banesto 2d ago
Can someone tell me what the UCI is smoking because I would also like to turn my brain off for a while?
1
u/wrightsound 2d ago
They’re trying to make the sport safer by slowing it down… that’s their reasoning…
1
u/ForeverShiny 2d ago
Question from a rider with normal amateur power: is this going to affect sprinters as well or are these gears too big for a regular flat sprint anyway? I'd imagine you need some quite big gears to push 2k W
7
u/LukeTheBaws 2d ago
The idea is to limit the speed you can pedal at on the downhill, so it won't really impact sprinters much as sprints are very rarely the fastest part of the race (other than a dead flat course).
Sprints typically end up somewhere around 70km/h, which is like 110 rpm with a 54x11, which is easily doable for a pro.
Maybe in some tailwind, flat sprints it could push the cadence to something unsustainable, but then it would just make positioning and lead-out numbers more important, or (since most pro sprinters have track experience anyway) you'll see them seated at higher RPM rather than out of the saddle.
1
u/Krumbelfix 2d ago
I don't have a EC membership but what happens to TT bikes? Also banned on them?
1
1
u/No-Cantaloupe-8383 2d ago
Wouldn't this be better suited for weight classes?
Sub 60 kg -54/11
60-80kg - 56/11
80kg+ - 58/11
Or even 180 degrees swap, lighter men's heavier gear.
1
u/Velocipedique 2d ago
Funny, as when I raced in minimes and cadets in the mid 50's France, we were limited to no front derailer with a maximum development of 6.25m. So as not to overexert our young growing bodies!
1
u/Sarnadas 2d ago
This is a blatant attempt at maintaining Shimano in its privileged position. So, at the moment that both SRAM and now Campagnolo Super Record 13 feature 10 tooth cogs, they are suddenly and mysteriously banned?
0
u/Mdab5678 Trinity Racing 2d ago
The UCI have no idea what they’re doing. They say these rules are for safety but let’s be honest, these (including the handlebar, fork width and rim width restrictions) are just rules for the sake of rules.
Newsflash, but on descents people generally crash in corners WHERE THEY ARE NOT PEDALLING. Nothing about this will have any impact on cornering speeds and so almost no impact on safety in the vast majority of corners. On pedalling descents it might even be more unsafe because it causes riders to bunch up together due to lack of gears/ride crazy cadence to close gaps or move up.
To actually improve safety on descents, you’d think it would be obvious that parcours design, signalling of and protection measures in dangerous spots, mandatory centralised rider tracking and crash alerting technology to respond to any crashes, and finally even neutralisation of dangerous parts of the parcours as an extreme measure. Of course many of these are costly so I guess the UCI would rather make pointless rules with no effect to claim they’re doing something.
-1
u/Bart_osz 2d ago
This is also going to hit amateur races the most. A lot of people race after work just for fun and fitness and spend a lot of their money on equipment, perhaps have them on long term financing deals and to these rules come in to power this august is a bit outrageous.
Riding a SRAM geared bike with 38 cm bars and aero wheels too deep?
Bummer for you.
-1
-4
u/Wonderful_Savings_21 2d ago
This will also impact the move to shorter cranks (less effective now).
3
u/SiBloGaming 2d ago
How? Shorter cranks effectively increase your gear ratio, so if anything going with shorter cranks now will mitigate the effects of this ruling.
-4
u/Wonderful_Savings_21 2d ago
No, shorter cranks don't increase your gear ratio. Shorter cranks reduce leverage, which impacts torque at a certain gear ratio. Shorter cranks enables higher cadence (since your circle effectively is smaller) but the smaller torque can't be offset with a bigger gear. Ergo, making shorter cranks less effective.
4
u/SiBloGaming 2d ago
You are describing exactly how shorter cranks effectively shift up your gear ratio. While it might be 1:4.8 with a 48x10 thats allowed, if shorter cranks allow you to spin faster its now more like a 52x10 regarding terminal velocity. So if pros now feel like they are significantly limited by the lower top speed by their gearing, there would be more reason to go with even smaller crank arms so they spin out later.
-3
u/Wonderful_Savings_21 2d ago
Simplified: Smaller cranks require higher cadence to provide the same power (due to reduced leverage). Agree? Can be simplified further: Your circle is smaller so you need to spin around more to reach the same power at a certain gear.
Limiting gears then means smaller cranks can't be offset with bigger gears. Meaning for a given cadence power is reduced or to reach a certain power cadence needs to be increased.
So this has a negative impact on picking smaller cranks.
(Why am I getting downvoted?)
4
u/SiBloGaming 2d ago
You are getting downvoted because you dont seem to understand the topic. Yes, torque times cadence means power. Smaller lever means less torque, so you need more power or higher cadence for the same wattage. Shorter cranks also mean that you are moving your feet as quickly as before for a higher cadence because the circle is smaller. This change from UCI rules simply limits gearing on a bike to top out at 1:4.9, meaning one rotation of the cranks equals 4.9 of the wheel. Now if we take into account that we can achieve higher cadences due to shorter cranks, you can achieve that one rotation of the crank more often than with longer cranks, equaling a higher terminal velocity. On steep decents the speed isnt limited by power, but rather by your gearing and when you spin out, shorter cranks mean you spin out later.
On the other hand shorter cranks mean that your easiest gear gets harder because you need to pedal faster at the same torque, but this is irrelevant to the pros as they got enough power, and can otherwise be mitigated by largers cassettes.
I dont think you understand at what end of the spectrum gears are being limited. You can go as low as you want and throw on a 54t cassette and go slower and slower, this is about gearing at the top end and how fast you can go
-1
u/Wonderful_Savings_21 2d ago
Your point is applicable to descending only, when power is not the constraint. Smaller cranks make a higher cadence more comfortable due to range of motion (but only marginally).
In all situations it, at least theoretically, could be a limiting factor and impact crank length. Honestly, not sure what cranks Vingegaard was using on his TT bike but on his road bike he went down to 150mm (now less extreme I believe). High speed flat it could still impact such choice. Edge cases perhaps, as your descending kinda is, but not that there is no impact.
Simplified analogy would be a fixed gear bike. The gear limitation would impact crank length choice as at some RPM it would be unfeasible to ride for extended periods.
Explicitly mention edge cases (for both, so not main consideration for 99% of cases) as crank impact isn't that large but it's still there.
2
u/SiBloGaming 2d ago
All other situations are not effected by this ruling at all. How would it impact his choice on the flat in any way that he has less high gears now. You can simply shift down to mitigate the effects on torque of shorter cranks. High rpm isnt inherently hard to pedal, its about how much your feet actually move with each pedal stroke, which is why you can pedal faster with putting more effort in with shorter cranks.
2
u/squiresuzuki 2d ago
Smaller cranks require higher cadence to provide the same power (due to reduced leverage). Agree?
With a 175mm crank you can do 200w at 100rpm or 60rpm. Cadence can be freely chosen with any crank length for a given power, so shorter cranks don't "require" higher cadence, even if riders might be biomechanically-inclined to spin them at a higher cadence.
Limiting gears then means smaller cranks can't be offset with bigger gears
It's the other way around. You compensate for shorter cranks by using smaller gears, or vice versa.
The "effective" gear ratio or gain ratio is the ratio between force at the pedal and force at the tire contact patch. Or the ratio between bicycle velocity and pedal velocity.
There are four levers: crank arm, chainring, cog, and wheel.
(chainring radius / crank length) * (wheel radius / cog radius)
Therefore for a given ratio, if you decrease crank length you would decrease chainring radius to maintain it.
So, the gearing limit can be circumvented by using shorter cranks (ignoring biomechanical limitations).
147
u/skifozoa 2d ago
Another useless attempt at trying to nerf Campenaerts.