![\"Brussels](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/2025-SRAM-Red-AXS-road-groupset-review-escape-collective-dave-rome-23.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Tech news<\/a><\/p>\n The ruling upheld the injunction against a gear limit trial and ordered the UCI to pay \u20ac2,200 in court costs and attorney fees.<\/p>\n Dave Rome<\/p>\n The UCI has failed in its attempt to overturn a Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) ruling that blocked its proposed maximum gear ratio test, which was originally proposed on safety grounds for the 2025 Tour of Guangxi. The Brussels Court of Appeal rejected the governing body\u2019s appeal on Wednesday and ordered the UCI to pay costs.<\/p>\n The ruling was issued Wednesday morning by the court\u2019s 19th chamber, which handles competition cases. The court\u2019s decision closes the immediate dispute but raises a broader question: if cycling’s governing body must meet public-regulation standards when setting equipment rules, which other federations are now exposed to the same scrutiny?\u00a0 <\/p>\n How did we get here?\u00a0<\/p>\n The UCI tried to introduce a rule limiting how big a gear riders could use in road races, and implemented a test at the Tour of Guangxi. SRAM drivetrains were the only equipment that didn’t comply with the 54×11 limit, as both Shimano and Campagnolo offer different chainring and cog sizes. Compliance, for SRAM, would have put the teams the company sponsors at a competitive disadvantage to those on other drivetrain brands, and also stood to materially impact SRAM’s business through the implication that its drivetrains were illegal.<\/p>\n SRAM complained to the Belgian competition regulator, which blocked the rule and the test last year. The UCI appealed. It lost.<\/p>\n The court found the UCI wrote the rule without properly consulting the manufacturers it affected, didn’t document its reasoning, and effectively singled out one company. The gear limit rule, therefore, will remain blocked, though the UCI could go back to square one and create the same rule with a process the courts would consider fair and transparent.\u00a0<\/p>\n The ruling is focused on how rules are made, rather than the rules themselves. A separate investigation into whether the UCI broke competition law is still ongoing.<\/p>\n What the court found<\/p>\n The court addressed six grounds of appeal, rejecting each in turn.<\/p>\n On jurisdiction, it found the UCI’s rule produced real and immediate effects in Belgium, where SRAM brought its lawsuit: Belgian teams use SRAM equipment, and the uncertainty was already causing teams to consider switching manufacturers.<\/p>\n This post is for paying subscribers only Already have an account? Sign in<\/a><\/p>\n Did we do a good job with this story?<\/p>\n \n \ud83d\udc4dYep![\"Caley](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CF_PROFILE-150x150.png\")
<\/p>\n
\n Subscribe now<\/a><\/p>\n
\n \ud83d\udc4eNope\n <\/p>\n