“Cycling is scarily close to its Ayrton Senna moment … it’s on us to ensure it doesn’t happen.” That was the closing message from Dan Bigham in a tightly argued presentation on why limiting gear ratios won’t make cycling safer to the Science and Cycling conference in Lille this week.
In the wake of several high-profile crashes and tragic rider deaths in recent years, the UCI has intensified its focus on safety reforms. Among the measures now being explored is a limit on gear ratios, the idea being that capping the size of the largest gear a rider has available to push will reduce speeds and therefore lower the risk of serious injury. On the surface, it sounds great, but the reality is not quite so simple.
Bigham, a former World Hour Record holder, Olympic medalist, and now Head of Engineering at Red Bull-BORA Hansgrohe, is as comfortable in wind tunnels and spreadsheets as he is in the peloton. Speaking at the conference held annually just ahead of the Tour de France in the city of the Grand Depart, he delivered a calm but clinical dismantling of the UCI’s gear limit proposal, arguing not just that it won’t work, but that it actively misleads, distracts, and wastes valuable time.
This wasn’t a rant. It was an evidence-based teardown from someone who’s spent years chasing performance gains by understanding the physics, physiology, and real-world constraints that define modern cycling. And in this case, he believes the numbers point to a simple truth: gear ratio limits won’t make cycling safer, and may do more harm than good.
If it won’t work, why do you care
If the proposed gear limit won’t change how races unfold, and the data we’ll see in a bit says it won’t make riders measurably slower or safer, then why is Dan Bigham so vocal about it?
Did we do a good job with this story?
