On June 12, the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) pushed a press release with a number of new rules taking effect January 1, 2026. The list included rim height limits, helmet specifications, fork width limits, and most notably the a new UCI bar width rule.
We covered those changes when they were announced. However the UCI bar width rule in particular never made a lot of sense. We discussed this detail to some extent on the latest Velo Podcast but there were still some unclear details.
It turns out there was enough confusion that the UCI has clarified the details. According to a new statement from the UCI, “These changes are part of an overall approach aimed at ensuring ever safer and fairer competition conditions, in a context marked by rapid technological advances and a significant increase in racing speeds that could have an impact on rider safety.
“Several of these measures respond to recommendations made by SafeR, the organization dedicated to improving safety in men’s and women’s professional road cycling. They were developed following extensive consultation with riders, teams and organizers, including through the distribution of questionnaires to the entire peloton.”
From there, the UCI bar width rule is the first listed and there are new diagrams. As stated, “The decision to introduce a minimum handlebar width of 400 mm (measured between the two outer edges of the handlebar – A), as well as a minimum width of 320 mm measured between the brake levers (between the inner edges of the levers – B), is in line with this approach. This corresponds to a minimum width of 380 mm from center to center (C), a standard commonly used in the cycling industry.
“This rule will apply from 1 January 2026 for road and cyclo-cross events with a mass start. For track events with a mass start, a minimum width of 350 mm (measured between the two outer edges) will be introduced from 1 January 2027.
“These changes, defined in consultation with stakeholders, aim to ensure that all athletes, regardless of their body type, can compete with equipment that is both high-performance and safe.”
“A – Minimum width of 400 mm (measured between the two outer edges)
B – Minimum width of 320 mm (measured between the inner edges of the brake levers)
C – Minimum width of 380 mm (measured from center to center).
In addition, the new rule includes another maximum dimension regulating the flare design of the handlebar for road and cyclo-cross bikes: there must be a maximum distance of 50 mm between the internal extremity of the handlebar and the outer edge of the handlebar on the same side (see diagram below). For track, the distance will be 80 mm.”
The problem with the rule
With an understanding of the facts as laid out by the UCI, let’s talk about the problem. Although the UCI specifically mentions that the rules were “developed following extensive consultation with riders, teams and organizers, including through the distribution of questionnaires to the entire peloton” what’s critically missing in that statement is specificity.
As mentioned, this was not the only rule introduced as part of this announcement. It’s entirely possible that a large portion of the peloton was willing to agree to changes to maximum rim depth or a better distinction between road and TT helmets.
What about the UCI bar width rule? Were women’s teams and fitters consulted about this change? It seems hard to believe that smaller women athletes have been considered in this decision.
Specifically the detail at issue is the width between the inside of the hoods. As the rule is written, a size 38 cm handlebar is the lower limit allowed. This is specifically the detail addressed in this latest update.
That new lower limit of 38 cm happens to be the bar width I use as an average height male athlete of 5’ 9”. I don’t use dramatically turned in controls and when I measure my bars, I see the 32 cm minimum between brake levers just barely. It’s highly dependent on how the levers are angled if my bars actually squeak by.
With just a bit of inward tilt it’s very easy to fall afoul of the 32 cm minimum. Looking at the bikes I have on hand it seems a little easier to stay out of trouble with SRAM than Shimano hood shapes but I really have to be careful either way. Any narrower than a 38 is a no-go (if I were a pro road rider that is). I have bars from Enve and Trek on hand that measure 37 cm at the hoods and 40 cm on the drops and those are a definite no-go, as is the BMC 36 cm bar on many of the best BMC builds.
Just to be clear, that means many of the bikes I own are suddenly breaking UCI rules and I’m an average height male athlete running a size 54 frame. That’s not all that small. What about women in the pro peloton who are shorter than me?
James Thomas, known as Bikefit James, told BikeRadar, “I believe this to be a blatant disregard for almost all female cyclists — in my experience over 80 percent will require a narrower bar than a 38 cm.”
The starting point is too wide
I previously covered how the bike industry is making the exact mistake that the UCI is making when I wrote Smaller Riders Deserve Narrower Bars and discussed the issue with elite cyclist and fit expert Missy Schwab.
In that article, I discussed with Schwab style vs fit in bar width decisions. My thesis was simply that wider bars on adventure bikes don’t actually make a lot of sense when fit comes first. Schwab corrected me, gently, in a way that’s echoed here. Yes, different bikes and situations require wider bars. The UCI wants to make sure that in the search for aero advantages control isn’t sacrificed, and a wider bar could help that.
The problem is that the starting point is too wide. Discussing my fit as an example, Schwab says that even bikes that offer a bar on the smaller side of the trend line are speccing too wide. Instead of the common 42 for a size 54 gravel bike she mentioned considering “maybe a 38-40 bar to have a little bit more width” in case there’s a need to “stand up or really pull through.”
Although Schwab was emphatic that different riders will have different needs, I pushed her on that point. For one thing I happen to ride the same frame size as her and seem to have the same shoulder width. More importantly though, a brand has to make a decision for everyone buying a bike in a particular size. I asked Schwab about this and she told me, “as a general rule of thumb every gravel position that I have set up as a fitter I 100% can say that I have recommended a narrower handlebar for every athlete who comes in with a gravel bike. They’re too wide.”
Now obviously that’s a discussion about gravel bikes, but look at her recommendation. Schwab says “maybe a 38-40 bar to have a little bit more width” on a gravel bike. That means a road bike is going to be narrower than that and the UCI is making it difficult to even use a 38 cm bar given the minimum of 320 mm between the brake levers.
The rule is discriminatory
If a size 54 gravel bike should be running somewhere around 38-40cm bar width, what about all the smaller bikes in the pro peloton? Anna van der Breggen rides a 52, Annemiek van Vleuten rides a 53, Trek shared that Lizzie Deignan was on a size 50 frame in 2020, and there’s plenty more athletes on similar sized bikes. Certainly men will feel the impact of this rule as well, but many on the men’s side of the pro ranks are on bigger bikes where this won’t be an issue. This can’t be good for growing women’s participation in cycling.
The UCI bar width rule is going to affect you
Very few people in the world think UCI rules affect them. You probably don’t race UCI events, so why should you care about this rule?
You think you can buy whatever bars you want since you don’t participate in UCI events. Except that cycling is driven at the core with a race Sunday, sell Monday model. Many brands and people think that’s a problem, and they may be right, but it is the reality.
The bikes you see in your local shop are primarily driven by the bikes you see raced at the highest levels. Brands invest money in sizes and parts that people buy, and when no one in the pro peloton can ride anything smaller than a 38 cm bar, it’s going to be very difficult to buy a narrower bar. Would Trek have invested money in developing a 37/40 bar for the Trek Madone if it couldn’t be raced?
It’s already difficult to find 38 cm bars on bikes or for sale at the higher end. It’s even more difficult to find something smaller. That trend is starting to change as athletes realize it’s faster to run a narrower bar. Suddenly smaller riders are getting more fit options as demand grows because of aerodynamics. This rule will chill that trend, and it won’t matter if you race in UCI events, it’s going to be more difficult to find a bar in smaller sizes.
Don’t think this won’t affect you.
Will the UCI bar width rule change?
I don’t have an answer for that. I’ve reached out to multiple people at the UCI with no response as of publication. I’ve requested comments from Adam Hansen, president of the professional riders’ union (CPA), and again I currently have no comment to share.
The UCI is likely looking to make sure that riders have the necessary control during races. But there are other situations where rules have implementations dependent on rider size. Doing so here would seem like a simple sidestep to both preserve the intent and limit discrimination.
Getting a follow up clarification that only doubles down on the rule is not a great sign.