Here at Bike Snob NYC Worldwide Enterprises, we strive at all times to be allies of marginalized groups:
That’s why we’re standing up for…
…SRAM?
Yes, that’s right. In case you haven’t been paying attention, SRAM and its customers have become the victim of systematic oppression and institutional discrimination due to the UCI’s reactionary gear restriction trial:
Not only is limiting riders to a maximum gear ration of 54×11 indicative of a colonial mindset:
This new rule, a variation on the old junior gears system, marks the first technical gear limitation in modern professional cycling and will cap the distance covered per pedal revolution to 10.46 meters – effectively limiting riders to a maximum gear ratio of 54×11 on 700c wheels.
But it is clearly meant to disempower SRAM and its riders…
However, the trial system will significantly impact SRAM-sponsored teams, whose riders use a 10-tooth smallest cog on the rear cassette. Under the new 10.46 metre cap, any combination exceeding 54×11 is now prohibited.
This means SRAM riders using a 10-tooth cog will be limited to a maximum 49-tooth chainring, ruling out the 50T and 54T setups that are common in the pro peloton, and the 54×10 configuration favoured by many of SRAM’s professional teams.
…at least according to SRAM, who claim it is yet another microaggression that is an all too familiar part of the SRAM rider’s lived experience:
And now, as it launches its legal action, SRAM is calling for the immediate suspension of the UCI’s gearing restrictions, preventing it from being trialled in China or any other future races, claiming the rules “hinder innovation, limit rider choice, and unfairly disadvantage SRAM riders and SRAM”.
Not only is this trial a clear violation of SRAM’s civil rights, but it also “distorts competition in the road drivetrain market” by continuing to allow competition from any company not named SRAM:
And along with disadvantaging SRAM-using riders, the company says the rule “distorts competition in the road drivetrain market by limiting choice for professional teams and ultimately consumers, as SRAM relies on top-level teams to use and market its products”.
I mean how else are they supposed to market their $515 road bike cassettes?
Jeez, get a grip, SRAM. That’s something you should know a lot about, by the way:
I admit I haven’t paid attention to what’s happening in high-end road bike drivetrains since the dawn of the electronic era, so in an attempt to wrap my head around why such a gear restriction would cause any sort of a problem for them I visited their site and read up on the latest Red stuff:
In particular their “X-Range Gearing:”
Which allows riders to configure their drivetrains for a wide variety of scenarios…except for this one, apparently?
So wait, is the problem that they went all-in on $550 cassettes and 10-tooth cogs, and now they have to use a 48-tooth instead of a 50-tooth or else sacrifice their whole marketing gimmick?
That’s hilarious. I mean, I honestly feel bad for them too since the whole trial seems completely pointless. But when your marketing lives by the peloton it also dies by the peloton…so still, hilarious.
Alas, the UCI is a fickle mistress. Just ask the Trek Y-Foil:
Don’t worry, SRAM. Sure, the UCI banned the Y-Foil just as Trek was about to go balls deep in beam bikes, but it all worked out fine in the end…if by “fine” you mean the Y-Foil became a cult item, which is a polite way of saying it was a laughingstock.
Mostly though, I just feel old. Remember when SRAM road bike stuff looked like this?
No batteries indeed.