The much needed UCI loller thread

[RedheadDane]

UCI: Handlebars cannot be narrower than 40 CM! Perfectly fair for everyone.

Uhm...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1933797558087782436

https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20250615_92988650

 

[carolina]

This rule is ridiculous and the women teams should unite and complain to the UCI to force a change. They are making women ride with an improper bikefit.

If they want to make a rule, just say that the bars can't be narrower then rider's shoulder width. Problem solved.

 

[RedheadDane]

If they want to make a rule, just say that the bars can't be narrower then rider's shoulder width. Problem solved.

Or - if broad shouldered riders like Kruijswijk and Welsford are going to find that unfair - simple word it something like this:
"Handlebars cannot be narrower than 40 CM, or the rider's shoulder width - whichever is narrowest."
So a rider with 45 CM shoulder width can still go down to 40 CM handlebars, while a rider with 30 CM shoulder width can stay with that size handlebars.
(Unless, of course, it's a safety concern, and UCI is worried that too narrow handlebars will limit riders' control. In which case; surely too wide handlebars will also limit riders' control...)

Another guy weighed in:

The UCI is banning handlebars narrower than 40cm - here's why I think it's a bad idea

The new UCI rulings might be well intentioned, but once again women’s cycling seems to have been overlooked

www.cyclingweekly.com

 

[pastronef]

the 10 teeth cog will not be allowed anymore. Sram equipped teams won't be able to use it in 2026. back the good old 11

 

[Mayomaniac]

Not that the rule isn't stupid, but it's 40cm measured from outside end to outside end, so 38cm if you measure it like normal bars. Also that weird hoods thing will be a headache with flared bars. But of course not a word about hookless, because big players in the industry are invested.

 

[Mayomaniac]

the 10 teeth cog will not be allowed anymore. Sram equipped teams won't be able to use it in 2026. back the good old 11

Wait, for real?

 

[pastronef]

Wait, for real?

New UCI gear rules will restrict SRAM's use of 10t cog, but there could be implications for wider tyres too

SRAM teams no longer able to use 10t sprocket with standard road setups

www.cyclingnews.com

 

[Red Rick]

Fear not citizens of Cycling, our beloved sport is safe once more.

 

[Mayomaniac]

New UCI gear rules will restrict SRAM's use of 10t cog, but there could be implications for wider tyres too

SRAM teams no longer able to use 10t sprocket with standard road setups

www.cyclingnews.com

ok, it is actually a bit different, an overall restriction for chain meters developed per complete crank revolution. They could have made it a bit bigger, let's say 10.65m (just 20cm longer than their proposed one), so that 55x11 and 50x10 are the max size gears, but the overall idea isn't that bad (but the execution is UCI levels of stupid). I expect Sram to fight it and if it happens we'll probably end up with the max 10.65m, as I proposed, still making the bigger Sram set-up (50/35 chainrings with the cassette with the 10t sprocket) just legal (just like a hypothetical 55x11 for Shimano).

That said, the 10t cog is less efficient that an 11t one, but people like the bigger gear ratio (and Sram started it to get away with a smaller gap in chainring size at the front because of their inferior front derailor).

 

[Mayomaniac]

Fear not citizens of Cycling, our beloved sport is safe once more.

Hey, at least they aren't FIS...

 

[Unchained]

This rule is ridiculous and the women teams should unite and complain to the UCI to force a change. They are making women ride with an improper bikefit.

If they want to make a rule, just say that the bars can't be narrower then rider's shoulder width. Problem solved.

Your point is 1000% valid and a variety of issues, some serious can come from using handlebars that are too wide..
that said,, things also come up from bars too narrow. UCI looks to be leaning into handling and bike safety instead of rider health. Wide bars for riders, men and women with narrow shoulders, or just find closer hand positions more comfortable need options.
Especially small female riders will suffer immediately because of hand and shoulder position being wider. The bike controls are majority located on brake shifter assembly. Yes w electronic shifting you can program a remote button (s) for shifting but braking still requires contact with the hoods. With that you don't have any options, will likely require a shorter stem in order to ride for extended periods on the hoods. Pack riding, fast riding, most fast downhill riding is not done on the tops of the handlebars.. And riding on the tops are the only place to get current more narrow shoulder position.
Deep section wheels are easy but forcing smaller riders to ride a bike that doesn't fit them, likely to cause negative health effects is a bad standard for the rules..

 

[elguapo]

Riders descending 110+ kph on a single file has no problem with crashes, and if crashes do occur, it is due to rider's poor descending skills or equipment failure; while those mass sprint finishes with 50-60 kph are prone to crashes, could it be that the aggressive positioning of riders is the culprit in causing these crashes?

 

[Tim Cahill]

De Bondt in trouble, failed an IQ test (non doping)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936024558131462186

 

[CyclistAbi]

Safety measures.

P.S. UCI took it literally. As for the results, neglecting this area and basically ridiculing it by governing bodies, we can see results year in, year out.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

De Bondt in trouble, failed an IQ test (non doping)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936024558131462186

In order to secure some balance, they should also appoint an advisory, alternative ethics committee with the likes of Vino, Bouhanni, Moscon and De Vlaeminck as members.

 

[CyclistAbi]

While we are at ethic commissions and UCI, there are same disturbing things, to put it mildly, ongoing in this day and age and UCI, AFAIK, remains silent. That is not acceptable. Sooner, rather than later, UCI will need to take a stance, cycling is not immune to that.

 

[jmdirt]

ok, it is actually a bit different, an overall restriction for chain meters developed per complete crank revolution. They could have made it a bit bigger, let's say 10.65m (just 20cm longer than their proposed one), so that 55x11 and 50x10 are the max size gears, but the overall idea isn't that bad (but the execution is UCI levels of stupid). I expect Sram to fight it and if it happens we'll probably end up with the max 10.65m, as I proposed, still making the bigger Sram set-up (50/35 chainrings with the cassette with the 10t sprocket) just legal (just like a hypothetical 55x11 for Shimano).

That said, the 10t cog is less efficient that an 11t one, but people like the bigger gear ratio (and Sram started it to get away with a smaller gap in chainring size at the front because of their inferior front derailor).

I'm not opposed to limiting 'roll out' in an effort to improve safety, but having the trial run in August doesn't give any of the manufacturers time to prepare, especially SRAM who will be most affected. If I remember correctly, some of SRAMs cassettes go 10, 11, 12... so the UCI could/should allow teams to use the limit screw to eliminate the 10, but that still isn't equitable obviously.

Bike Radar

 

[CyclistAbi]

I assume there is actual data behind it, some proof that narrower handlebars and bigger gears contributed to X amount of safety related issues and now hopefully for that amount of incidents to fully or at least partially to be reduced? Are this numbers and predictions by any chance available to the general public?

As AFAIK with supertuck there was no actual data behind it to support the ban in terms of safety related incidents involved and they even admitted it, hopefully this doesn't fall in that category again. Improving safety by not having any data whatsoever to prove or suggesting you actually improved safety.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

They relegated Bomboi for avoiding a lead-out...

 

[ice&fire]

De Bondt in trouble, failed an IQ test (non doping)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936024558131462186

Does anyone know if any punishable misbehaviour of Contador and Tiralongo in Macugnaga 2011 and Fuente Dé 2012 has prescribed?