The UCI rulebook has always had its issues. But the extensive backlash to the latest round of proposed changes, particularly those focused on the intersection of equipment and rider safety, raises significant concerns over the process by which those rules are made. The real problem isn’t just equipment tweaks, it’s a rule-making system that's often arbitrary, opaque, and out of touch with the sport itself.
How do these errors of both judgement and execution keep happening? And what do the UCI proposals and leaked documents obtained by Escape Collective reveal about how cycling’s governing body makes decisions, its true motivations, and how it communicates with stakeholders essential to the very existence of the sport? Is the governing body's regulatory process fit for purpose?
Ronan Mc Laughlin
Part one of our investigation focused on the flaws in the UCI's handlebar and lever width rules, which most recently were the subject of an extraordinary apology from CPA President Adam Hansen. In part two, we explore similarly conflicting claims over the new maximum rim depth rules, the ripple effects of frustration from an industry that feels blindsided, and questions about flawed rider surveys leading to concerns over fairness, ergonomics, and enforcement. Together, these issues point to a regulatory system in crisis and a governing body at risk of losing its authority.
The question now isn’t just whether the UCI will walk back these particular rules. It’s whether the process that produced them can be trusted at all. The UCI now stands at a crossroads: fix the system, or risk obliterating any remaining trust within the sport it exists to serve.
Conflicting claims on rim depth
As part of its collection of proposals, the UCI's SafeR commission would limit rim depth to 65 mm. This change has received less attention than the handlebar measurement but the process behind it appears to be no less flawed.
Did we do a good job with this story?
