That said, even though the 1,165 km route crosses through four regions and has a total elevation gain of 17,240 metres, it still comes nowhere close to the 3,320 km that the men will cover. And, as with virtually every other race on the calendar, it sparked a familiar debate: why do women race shorter distances than men?
Why are women’s races shorter?
The differences in race distance aren’t limited to Tour de France; across UCI-sanctioned events, elite women’s races are typically shorter than their male counterparts. The UCI, the international governing body for cycling, sets these distance limits but the rationale behind them isn’t immediately apparent.
In terms of performance, recent analysis shows that elite women race somewhere between 15-20% slower than men – a stark contrast to the nearly triple difference in race distance at the Tour de France. Proponents of shorter women’s races argue that the format is spectator-friendly and women may not want longer distances. Yet, the reasoning behind limiting race distance isn’t directly supported by athlete preferences or physiological data.
UCI regulations on race distance
The UCI has set specific regulations regarding race distances for men and women. For instance:
- A UCI WorldTour Grand Tour for men must be between 15-23 days, with daily stages averaging up to 180 km.
- In contrast, UCI Women’s WorldTour stage races max out at 150 km per day, with a one-time exception allowed.
These numbers may seem arbitrary, especially since they don’t directly reflect physiological limitations. In other endurance sports like marathon running, men and women cover identical distances. The decision to regulate race length by gender in cycling, some argue, may be rooted more in tradition than science.
Historical context: Conventions and cultural norms
Cycling, as with many sports, is steeped in tradition. Historically, women were largely excluded from intense physical activities due to cultural beliefs about femininity and physical health. In the late 19th century, women cyclists faced significant backlash, with some commentators claiming cycling would cause infertility, “unfeminine” muscle development, and even organ displacement.
Over time, as women’s participation in sports grew, these stigmas began to fade but their influence on policy remains. The early regulations, designed in an era with little understanding of female physiology, persist in today’s UCI rules. The limitations placed on women’s races may reflect these outdated perspectives, rather than an accurate representation of women’s athletic abilities.
Women’s capacity in endurance sports
Despite historical biases, evidence suggests that women are not at a disadvantage in endurance sports. In ultra-endurance events, women often excel relative to men, partly due to physiological traits like higher body fat percentages and differences in energy utilisation. Additionally, studies in cycling and running show that women typically perform about 10-12% slower than men, which could, in theory, be accounted for by adjusting race distances by time or proportionally.
In cycling, for example, recent data on the UCI hour record – an event that measures distance travelled in an hour – indicates that top male and female cyclists perform within a roughly 12% margin. However, the current regulations do not consider this margin when setting race distances, resulting in a significant disparity.
Potential benefits of equalising race duration
Equalising race durations or proportional distances could align the sport with modern perspectives on equality. By adjusting race formats to reflect the approximately 12% difference in elite men’s and women’s performance, athletes and spectators could benefit. Longer race formats might showcase women’s endurance more effectively and bring greater parity to the sport.
Moving to equal race durations could also enhance visibility for women’s cycling. Historically, shorter races have led to fewer televised hours, limiting exposure for female athletes. By bringing women’s races in line with men’s, the UCI and race organisers could contribute to increased media coverage and, ultimately, greater sponsorship and funding opportunities.
Looking ahead: Steps toward change
The current distance rules are not minimum requirements – women’s races can exceed them if organisers choose to. However, implementing consistent longer distances would require widespread change in both regulation and cultural perception. Critics argue that symbolic policy changes like this are essential to driving broader shifts in the sport.
Societal norms shape our actions in subtle ways. In sports, repeated adherence to tradition can cement gender roles that don’t accurately reflect reality. Embracing new regulations could send a powerful message, challenging assumptions and affirming that women can meet, and sometimes exceed, men’s endurance levels in sports.
The UCI’s race distance regulations for women have been shaped by a legacy of outdated conventions rather than evidence-based assessments of athletic capacity. Moving toward a model that considers performance data and equality could redefine women’s cycling, helping elevate the sport and pave the way for a more inclusive future.
