Are gear restrictions the answer to slowing down professional cycling? Perhaps not, but it’s past time that safety is more seriously addressed.
By Michael Barry.
Over the last few years, several of the top riders in the sport have had horrific crashes in racing and training, breaking bones and suffering internal organ trauma. This is nothing new to cycling, but crashes seem to be more frequent and the injuries worse than they once were. When I rode the 2005 Giro, there were rider protests over course safety. Back then, veteran riders were complaining about the decrease in respect in the peloton and the increase in crashes.
Steve Bauer, who raced in the 1970s–1990s, told me broken bones were few. Now, it seems almost every professional rider has broken a bone at some point.
Some crashed riders are able to return to their previous level, while others struggle in their recovery and have never had the same results. All will have been traumatized. Races have become faster than ever due to a multitude of reasons, from aerodynamics to nutrition to training techniques. Speeds will only increase as technology—and therefore the peloton—continue to evolve. With increased speeds has come higher gearing. No longer is 53×11 the norm, but larger rings and smaller cogs are often used to outpace the peloton.
Gear restrictions to slow the peloton down?
Recently, two of the sport’s stars, Wout Van Aert and Chris Froome, spoke about race safety and proposed the idea of limiting the maximum gear ratio to slow the peloton down—essentially, with lower gears riders would be limited by their pedal revolutions, so they couldn’t keep accelerating to higher speeds. Talk of gear restrictions sparked debate in the cycling media, but the lede had been buried: two of the sport’s stars, who have both suffered significant injuries in crashes, want the cycling governing bodies to make racing safer. Complacency among race organizers and governing bodies has led to slow implementation of safety studies and protocols, which is eclipsed by bike tech development.
Gaslighting its greatest assets, the governing bodies and race organizers have publicly criticized the riders for not racing more cautiously to avoid crashing. If the riders are racing on courses designed by organizers, checked by the UCI, and following the rules that are both implemented and policed by the UCI, surely, they shouldn’t be blamed for the crashes. It’s easy to criticize from the sidelines, while it requires extreme skill and courage to fly down a descent towards a finish line at speed. The riders are required to do a job: win. Like in an arena, or race track, or even on our city streets, structures and rules need to be in place to keep participants—or even citizens—safe. Other sports, notably Formula 1, have evolved with technology development while cycling has, for the most part, remained complacent.
The wrong questions are being asked
Rider concern over safety is nothing new. Over the last decades, each time there is a serious crash, where a rider dies or is seriously injured, debate ensues over what should be done. Weeks pass and the show goes on. Some say it is an accepted risk and part of the sport, while others argue changes need to be made. Race courses on public roads are innately hard to control. Sadly, little ever changes, and the rider protests often fall on deaf ears. Whether or not there has been an increase in the number of crashes is irrelevant: if the riders feel conditions are unsafe, their concerns should be addressed.
Van Aert’s proposal to limit gearing addresses a greater issue: the need for more attentive and in-depth analysis of why crashes are occurring, how courses could be modified, and how bike technology is influencing outcomes. In 2023, the UCI set up SafeR, a branch of the governing body, to implement safety protocols, but it seems, due to internal politics, they have been ineffective as few changes have been made.
Faster but more fragile bikes
Race bikes are lighter, faster, and more fragile than they have ever been. Wheels and frames fracture on impact instead of bend, as they once did. It should be studied whether this limits a rider’s reaction time before hitting the ground. In a recent interview, Dan Bigham, an engineer with RedBull Bora-Hansgrohe Team, suggested increasing the minimum weight of the bikes to allow for more durable material and sensors to gather and relay data.
Most technology introduced into the peloton is geared toward making the bike faster and lighter and is tested in a controlled laboratory environment for safety, but rarely on the road in a flying peloton, where the conditions are different. The sport needs to take a more holistic look at all technology—how each component influences outcomes in varied environments with a multitude of factors.
Handling and braking of current pro bikes
Deep-section rims on wheels with the minimal number of spokes are now universally used in races. They are fast and light, but also more difficult to handle in high or turbulent winds. Limiting rim depth would not only marginally decrease speed, but would also improve the way the bike handles, making the bikes less twitchy and easier to maneuver.
Disc brakes, which have become universal in the pro peloton over the last five years, allow riders to brake later so they enter turns faster. With more confidence in braking, riders can descend on the straightaways at greater speed, not having to worry about the need to scrub speed sooner. Does this create an accordion effect in the peloton, where riders towards the back crash into those in front of them? Some riders have said it does, and from television images, it often seems that is the result.
Time trial bikes are the least versatile, hardest bikes to handle, especially in adverse conditions. They are also the fastest. Limiting their gearing would slow speeds in a straight line, but they will remain difficult to maneuver, and it is unlikely gear limits would decrease race or training crashes. Two of the sport’s top performers, Chris Froome and Egan Bernal, were both heavily injured while training on their time trial bikes and have yet to return to their previous level of performance.
Riders just need to be tested—but not the usual kind
To drive a car, you need an eye test, yet bike racers aren’t required to be tested. As an amateur, I crashed heavily, breaking my femur, as I didn’t see loose gravel in the switchback of a wet descent. I realized then that I needed glasses, and as my career progressed, riders would often try them on in the team bus only to realize they also needed prescription glasses. If I were running a team, I would have the riders’ eyes tested yearly. Surely, it is something the UCI should enforce before they issue licenses, as a rider with poor eyesight not only puts themselves at risk but also others.
Recognizing how detrimental it is to their team when a rider crashes, and how much money is lost when a rider is sidelined, some teams are finally addressing safety internally instead of waiting for others to take the lead. Developing safety protocols for training as well as in-race protection is a starting point to advance the sport, but it must be addressed by all stakeholders together in a thoughtful, studied approach. We need a uniform philosophy and action plan.
If a factory had the injury rate of a bike race, it would be shut down.
