With what feels like an increasing number of incidents happening on our roads, many cyclists are taking additional measures to ensure they’re seen day and night, and that they have proof if an incident does occur. Combining an action camera and light into a single device, the Fly12 (front) and Fly6 (rear) are certainly unique products.

The original Fly6, an Australian invention, successfully used Kickstarter to launch in the heyday of crowdfunded campaigns. Since then, the small Australian start-up has vastly grown its international reach and even listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). More recently, the company released its largest product update yet, wholly new Fly6 (rear) and Fly12 (front) units, each with a “CE” (Connected Edition) moniker.

The original, and interim, generations of the Fly6 were innovative and unique, however, at least for me, the lack of a light bright enough for daytime visibility was always a deal-breaker, especially when you considered the size and weight of the unit. In contrast, the original Fly12 was a more polished product, however camera and battery tech keeps improving at a rapid rate, and the new Fly6 CE and Fly12 CE take advantage of both (plus more).

What’s new?

Almost everything, really.

In short, the Fly6 and Fly12 have both had major overhauls, including a facelift with more compact cases. Light output, image quality, connectivity options, mounting versatility, battery life (for the Fly6 CE) and price are all up. Weight and size are down (as is battery life for the Fly12 CE).

What hasn’t changed is the key design elements. Both are still safety cameras first and foremost, so the camera automatically turns on with the unit, and unlike the lights, there’s no way to turn it off. The strong battery life and video looping with incident protection (protecting recently recorded footage if the camera is left on its side for long enough) both remain, ensuring that memory card size is never an issue, and if an incident does occur, the footage won’t be lost. Likewise, IP56 water protection with nano-coated internals remain.

Both units now enjoy Bluetooth and ANT+ connectivity, with the former offering easy setting control through a phone, while the latter is used for linking with compatible cycling head units (currently only Garmin) for automated control. Battery charging and data transfer is now quicker and faster thanks to the new USB-C standard, and there is an option for “6-Axis digital image optimisation” for smoothing recorded footage on both devices.

Both units now share the same 1/8-turn mount type. While similar, it’s not compatible with popular GPS computer mounts.

Not all of the features that defined earlier versions of the Fly6 and Fly12 have been carried forward, though. In an effort to keep the final cost of each unit down, MicroSD memory cards are no longer supplied with the devices, so buyers will have to pay for their own. Wi-Fi connectivity has been removed from the Fly12, too, and the only way to transfer footage for editing is to plug the device, or memory card, directly into a phone, laptop or desktop.

For the Fly6 CE, the fourth generation unit is now slimmer, darker, and more modern-looking. At 112g (126g including mount), weight is only a smidge better than previous generations, but it achieves that while adding a whole host of new features and improved performance. Light output gets a significant boost from 30 to 100 lumens, while maximum video recording resolution jumps from 720p to full-HD 1080p at 60 frames per second (fps) to match the Fly12. All of these changes come with an increase in battery capacity, allowing the device to record for seven hours (without the light in use), approximately an hour longer than its predecessor.

The new Fly12 CE is noticeably more compact than the original Fly12 (left).

Compared to the new Fly6 CE, the Fly12 CE receives fewer updates. The outer casing is boxier and more compact, mirroring the styling for the Fly6 CE, and saves 48g for a weight of 195g. The charge port and MicroSD slot shift to the side of the unit and sit behind a mechanical latch. Light output is given a welcome boost from 400 lumens to 600 lumens, but the only update to video performance is the new digital image stabilisation (which effectively works through compressing the footage).

Battery capacity has been sacrificed for the Fly12 CE, a necessary trade-off to keep the device reasonably light and compact. Compared to the original Fly12 that boasted 10 hours of recording, the new version offers eight hours, yet that’s nearly a Lord of the Rings marathon longer than what a GoPro can manage.

Fitting and setup

New versus old. The Fly6 CE (top) employs a Velcro strap rather than a silicone band.

The Fly6 CE is a cinch to fit using a velcro strap with a 1/8-turn mount. Two different silicone spacers are provided along with three adapters to suit a variety of seatpost shapes. From 25.4mm round posts, to Giant’s D-Fuse (squared back shape), to deep aero posts, I was able to fit the Fly6 securely without issue. It’s a huge improvement from the original rubber strap system that was clunky, fragile, and offered limited compatibility.

The strap does have some minor quirks, however, with the silicon backing to the velcro strap peeling away with repeated use, while the strap was too long for some seatposts. In all my trials, the excess could be tucked out of the way, though some may prefer to trim it to length, assuming that it won’t be needed for other bikes. Spare straps are readily available for purchase at a fair price; Cycliq also sells a pannier mount and there’s a saddle rail mount on the way, too.

The handlebar mount takes up a fair bit of room, but the Fly12 CE comes with a GoPro adaptor that can be used with a variety of out-front computer mounts, like this one from Giant.

Fitting the Fly12 CE is even easier. The included 31.8/26mm plastic handlebar mount is extremely simple and effective, however, it does require a round handlebar and a reasonable amount of bar space given the device’s 57mm width. If bar space or shape is an issue, then the GoPro adaptor that is included with the unit will come in handy. It’s a welcome extra that allows you to use a number of out-front combination mounts, such as those from Cycliq, K-Edge, BarFly or similar. Buyers that want to get creative with collecting video footage should keep in mind that the Fly12 CE sits central to its mount, and it’s not nearly as compact as a GoPro, so there will be some places where it simply won’t fit with ease, such as a chest mount.

Safety tethers are included with the Fly6 CE and Fly12 CE. I didn’t put them to use, but if you’re worried the mounts aren’t secure enough, or you never want to see your device sliding across the pavement, then the option is there.

The phone app offers simple control over a variety of features.

New microSD cards were recognised immediately and setting up each device was relatively easy using the CycliqPlus app on iOS (also available on Android). Bluetooth synching was extremely easy, and from there you can control the specific settings, one device at a time. There’s also a desktop app, for Windows and for Mac.

If a device firmware update is needed, then it’s far from an automated process. Two separate files must be downloaded with a Mac or PC computer and then dragged and dropped onto the plugged-in device in stages. No, it’s not hard to do, and Cycliq provides clear instructions for the process, but it certainly feels like a dated process, especially when many other Bluetooth-equipped devices manage such updates through phone apps. Thankfully such updates should be few and far between.

Lighting and battery performance

The Fly6 CE (center) packs enough punch to have you clearly seen in the day. To its right sits a favourite daytime-running rear light, the Bontrager Flare R.

It’s simple. The new Fly6 CE is a vastly better light than any previous generation Fly6 — and ignoring the fact that it’s also a camera – it’s simply a good safety light. With a claimed 100 lumen output, the light is clearly visible from a fair distance in broad daylight, and once the sun goes down, it’s hard to miss (obviously). Side visibility isn’t class-leading, however there is just enough light from in front of the casing to make itself known.

The Fly6 CE offers three light modes: steady, flashing and strobe. Each mode offers three levels of brightness, and there’s an option of using the camera without the light at all. All of these modes and brightness levels can be selected within the CycliqPlus app, and in my case, I turned off a number of options to leave just four choices to toggle through.

The jump in light output for the Fly12 CE may not be quite as impressive as the Fly6 CE but 600 lumens is still plenty bright.

Compared to the 300% bump in output for the Fly6 CE, the 50% increase for the Fly12 CE is somewhat underwhelming. Still, 600 lumens is easily bright enough for daytime use, and it’s enough to get you home safely in the dark. However, by today’s standards, it’s a little weak as a means of revealing the path in front, especially if you’re seeking a light for night-time mountain biking.

Like the Fly6 CE, the Fly12 CE has three light modes (steady, flashing and strobe) with a beam pattern that offers a bright central spot that is just large enough to see the road directly in front. The light then has a softer halo around it that helps with side visibility and illuminating street signs.

As mentioned above, battery life for the Fly6 CE and Fly12 CE is seven and eight hours, but that only applies to the camera when the lights aren’t in use. When I tested the brightest flash settings, the Fly6 CE disco’d for exactly five hours and 30 minutes, with the camera shutting off approximately 90 minutes earlier in order to keep the light going. I didn’t have the same luck testing the run time for the Fly12 CE because the device’s Idle mode (automatic switch-off from a lack of movement) kept kicking in despite being turned off (yeah yeah, I should have been riding), but I expect it will be longer than the Fly6 CE.

Video recording

The video above provides real footage of Fly12 CE and Fly6 CE units, along with comparisons.

The original Fly12 was already competitive in the recording domain, offering 1080p definition at a maximum of 60fps, and it did so with reasonable colours and clarity with a wide 135-degree field of view. By comparison, the older Fly6s recorded at 720p and 30fps in a rare AVI file format with a narrower 100-degree field of view.

As mentioned above, the Fly6 CE has been upgraded to match the recording capabilities of the Fly12 and has inherited the same 135-degree lens. For those hoping to store more footage, both units can record at 1080p at 30fps, and, 720p at 60fps.

The new 6-axis image stabilisation does indeed work as claimed (at least for the Fly12) and goes a long way toward smoothing out what would otherwise be shaky footage. The feature does have a way of making an off-road rides look far tamer than reality, but on the road, it works to provide a clearer picture. Unfortunately, that image stabilisation refused to work for me on the Fly6 CE (see video above). Ben Hammond, Chief Marketing Officer at Cycliq, acknowledged that this was a known issue that was addressed by a previous firmware update, so it’s not clear why I couldn’t make use of image stabilisation with my sample, even after updating the firmware.

Compared to the second generation Fly6 that I had on hand, footage from the Fly6 CE appeared far more natural than the overly-warm tones captured by its predecessor. The wider field of view also does wonders for the new camera, grabbing license plate detail at angles well beyond what previous generations could manage. However, compared to the Fly12 CE, absolute clarity and colours are still lacking, and while it’s more than adequate for a safety camera, it can’t be considered an action camera.

The Fly12 CE, in contrast, can be considered a decent action camera. Not only does it do an impressive job capturing your field of view, it doesn’t suffer the same amount of barrel distortion as a GoPro Hero 4 Silver. Colours are good, and the Fly12 CE does a respectable job in challenging conditions, such as dappled light, capturing great detail without blowing out, unlike the GoPro. Both devices do suffer from lens flare in between shadows, though, with the Fly12 CE worse off.

All told, I was happy with the results I got off-road when using the Fly12 CE, and I wouldn’t hesitate to share it with an audience. Cycliq clearly agree with this sentiment, providing a handy save button (aka, “Did you see that?!”) for the Fly12 CE, whereas no such feature exists for the Fly6.

Both cameras were virtually useless at night, which isn’t surprising, but it may disappoint some hoping that the safety camera function was more versatile. As you can see in the recorded footage above, both cameras capture the general surroundings, but any specific details, such as license plate numbers, are often lost to overexposure by reflected light. Still, the footage may prove more useful than having none at all (see side-bar below), and you still get the benefit of the lights.

The Fly12’s rear-facing microphone is well controlled, if not lacking sensitivity. Even in a waterproof housing, the GoPro Hero 4 is far more sensitive to noise and if talking on camera, or capturing witty conversation is important, than you’ll likely be disappointed by the Fly12 CE.

The two devices differed quite significantly in their ability to record sound. The Fly12 CE’s microphone was relatively insensitive while the Fly6 CE could pick up sloshing from my water bottle (okay, you have to listen closely, but it is there, I swear). On the road, and at speed, audio from the Fly6 CE was often overwhelmed by wind noise, so it was pretty useless (and painful to listen to).

Hammond said the company is working on a firmware solution for this, saying that “balancing the profile and form factor of the device and the firmware algorithms is a challenge, however, we have tried to optimise it to pick up on any altercations once the bike is stationary (e.g. if there is an accident or confrontation).” Clearly, what is needed is some kind of smart audio collection, but until then, get used to muting the playback for any on-bike footage from the Fly6 CE.

The Other Features

Both the Fly6 CE and Fly12 feature an alarm that is controlled through the phone app. Designed to be used when ordering a latte, the alarm is enabled via Bluetooth and uses the device’s accelerometers to detect movement. If your bike is moved, the unit will start to flash and sound an annoyingly loud alarm. Assuming you and your connected phone are within the Bluetooth range (approx 15 meters), you’ll be alerted, too.

But wait, there’s more (though not a free set of steak knives). The Cycliq Fly12 CE and Fly6 CE can each be turned into very annoying alarms.

Curiously, both devices are equipped with a “flight mode”. That’s because Bluetooth is constantly running, and while it doesn’t seem to have a big impact on battery life over the course of a few days, there are aviation laws to abide by. Thus, it’s something for owners to keep in mind when travelling with these devices.

As mentioned in the introduction above, the Fly6 CE and Fly12 CE are now equipped with ANT+ connectivity, which may strike some as odd, given that there is no data to broadcast from a light/camera. However, ANT+ connectivity can be used to provide battery levels and some remote functions, such as operating the lights, just like Garmin’s lights and some models from Bontrager.

At this stage, only Garmin’s newest Edge models are compatible with the Fly6 CE and Fly12 CE, but they can be configured to turn on when the head unit is powered up while relaying information on battery levels. Right now that may seem a little gimmicky — and it is — but it’s likely that this kind of integration will become more useful with time.

I have the older versions, should I upgrade?

The New Fly6 CE is a vast improvement on previous generations. It’s enough of an upgrade that those using earlier generations of the Fly6 will be happy with their purchase. Even if it’s only for the improved light output.

The same can’t be said for the Fly12 CE. It’s certainly better than the original, but I don’t think there’s enough to justify replacing an existing unit. Yes, it’s smaller, lighter and brighter, but the original Fly12 does the most important things nearly as well.

As for those that have yet to install a safety camera on their bikes, but are thinking about it, I’m convinced the Fly6 CE and Fly12 CE are benchmark products. A set isn’t cheap, nor that lightweight, but if you compare it to a decent set of lights and quality action cameras, they are not only better value, they are better-considered products, too.

I’m so impressed with the new Fly6 CE that I’d choose to ride with one, and it’s a product I’d suggest for the masses. While it’s noticeably bigger and heavier than a rear light alone, it does much more than just keep you seen.

The same argument also works well for the front-facing Fly12 CE, but I don’t feel the need to have my rides recorded in such detail. And given that the Fly12 CE is noticeably bigger and more expensive than the Fly6 CE, I’d happily forego the extra camera angle in favour of a simpler front light.

A look at what’s included with the Fly12 CE.

A look at what’s included with the Fly6 CE.

The Fly12 CE and Fly6 CE now aesthetically match.

The Fly12 CE takes up a surprising amount of bar space.

Purely for size, here’s the Fly12 CE next to an Exposure Diablo.

For the Fly6 CE, the buttons sit on the side. One button handles the off/on and the mode toggling. The button on the other side is simply there for light brightness.

A side latch hides the Fly12 CE’s charge port and memory card slot. Such things are merely protected with a rubber cap on the Fly6 CE.

The new CE models are provided in much smaller boxes.

The Fly6 CE comes with three rubber wedges like this. They’re each designed to fit different seatpost shapes.

The Fly6 velcro strap comes with a silicon backing that grips nicely. Unfortunately it didn’t last.

The new Fly6 CE is smaller and better looking than the older generations.

The post Cycliq Fly12 CE & Fly6 CE bike cameras review: lights, camera, connectivity appeared first on CyclingTips.

Garmin’s new Edge 130 packs a generous array of useful features into its diminutive case, but does without the laundry list of more advanced ones that many riders don’t ever use. It’s also very lightweight, sports a surprisingly big screen, and commands a relatively modest sum of cash.

The Edge 130 is far from the fanciest or most expensive model in Garmin’s deep catalog of GPS cycling computers. But I’d argue that it’s not only the most important Edge Garmin has released in recent years, but quite possibly also the best one overall for most riders.

Less is more

Throughout Garmin’s long lineage of Edge GPS cycling computers, none seem to have as ardent a following as the Edge 500. First introduced in 2009, the compact model was aimed at performance-minded riders who wanted the convenience of a GPS-based computer, but one that was lightweight and had the ability to pair ANT+-compatible wireless devices such as power meters and heart rate monitors.

However, mapping functions on the Edge 500 were basically non-existent, and the monochrome LCD screen certainly didn’t provide as much visual sizzle as today’s full-color displays. Clearly, there was room for improvement.

Garmin injected an increasingly long list of functions into subsequent models, such as the Edge 510 and 520; Edge 800, 810 and 820; and the Edge 1000 and 1030. Though more feature-packed with everything from advanced navigation capabilities, to a huge list of possible data fields, smartphone connectivity, improved satellite receivers, and more, they also got much costlier, bigger, and most importantly, seemed less reliable over the long term.

The Garmin Edge 130 packs a relatively large display into its minuscule case, with up to eight pieces of data available on a maximum of 11 customizable pages.

It doesn’t take much online sleuthing to dig up plenty of accounts from aggravated Garmin users with buggy or bricked units, but somehow, the workhorse Edge 500 has somehow (mostly) managed to evade most of the major issues. It’s doubtful that Garmin has dedicated a disproportionate amount of support to this long-discontinued model, so the only logical reason left is that the Edge 500’s less-complicated firmware simply presented fewer things to go wrong.

Garmin’s model naming system would make the Edge 510 and Edge 520 (and the latest Edge 520 Plus) the intended successors to the Edge 500. However, the Edge 130 feels much more like the true descendant of that venerable workhorse.

Whereas the Edge 510, 520, and 520 Plus grew larger than the Edge 500, the Edge 130 is smaller and lighter, weighing just 33g without the mount, and measuring a tidy 41 x 63 x 16mm (the Edge 500 was 57g and measured 48 x 69 x 22mm). But despite the decrease in exterior dimensions, the LCD screen is nearly the same size at a comparatively generous 27 x 36mm, like one of those nouveau-riche McMansions built on a tiny plot of land.

A size (and screen) comparison of several popular GPS cycling computers. From left to right: the Garmin Edge 520, Wahoo Fitness ELEMNT Mini, Garmin Edge 130, Wahoo Fitness ELEMNT Bolt, and Lezyne Super GPS.

And just like the old Edge 500, the Edge 130 is operated with good old fashioned buttons instead of a touchscreen — five of them, in this case, arranged around the left, right, and lower edges of the case, and all rated to IPX7 levels of weatherproofing (basically, it’s fine to ride in the rain with this thing, but don’t go swimming with it).

Function-wise, the Edge 130 is expectedly richer than what the nearly-10-year-old Edge 500 offered, but still nowhere near as feature-packed as the Edge 1030. That unit offers a choice from 141 different data fields in addition to its advanced navigation, training, connectivity functions, plus third-party app compatibility that adds even more.

The Edge 130, on the other hand, limits the possible data field options to just 46, primarily centered around core functions related to speed, distance, time, barometer-based elevation, heart rate, and power. It won’t tell you how much time you spent seated vs. standing, your 30-second left vs. right power balance, or show your heart rate and cadence zones on a lovely full-color bar graph. However, that’s just fine since many riders don’t want or need that stuff, anyway.

Retail price is US$200 / AU$300 / £170 / €200 for the Edge 130 head unit alone. Bundled packages including a mix of speed, cadence, and heart rate sensors are also available, depending on region.

But still a lot to offer

That said, the Edge 130 is hardly a stripped-down price-point model. In addition to the usual metrics already mentioned, units paired with smartphones running the Garmin Connect app will also get live Strava segments, on-screen notifications such as calls and text messages, the ability to follow preloaded courses and routes, weather alerts, and Garmin’s nifty LiveTrack feature, which allows selected friends and family to follow your location in real time.

The Edge 130 can also be paired with Garmin Varia accessories, such as the front LED headlight and rear-facing radar unit, and most other ANT+ or Bluetooth-compatible cycling accessory like power meters and heart rate monitors.

Garmin didn’t equip the Edge 130 with a touchscreen, but the menu navigation is so straightforward and intuitive that the physical buttons work just fine. And given the more limited selection of data fields relative to more complex Edge models like the 1030, it isn’t that much of a chore to scroll through the different options on the device itself.

Users can opt to see just about as much or as little information as they’d like, with up to 11 different screens that can be customized with up to eight pieces of data each. Running elevation graphs can also be displayed, along with a digital compass, weather forecasts, and a breadcrumb-style map (again, no legitimate mapping or navigation is provided, although you get turn-by-turn directions for preloaded routes).

Some riders might be put off by Garmin’s decision to use a monochrome screen, but the fact of the matter is that a full-color display simply isn’t needed. The Edge 130’s LCD screen is gloriously crisp and legible, even in extremely bright sunlight, so all of that information is easy to read at a glance. In fact, I found the Edge 130’s screen to be sharper and easier to read than the full-color display on the Edge 520.

Likewise, no one should get too upset that the Edge 130 doesn’t have a touchscreen. The pleasantly intuitive and straightforward menu structure works very well with the physical buttons, which are also more reliable and predictable, especially when wearing full-fingered gloves. The ones situated on the front edge of the case might be difficult to access with out-front computer mounts that place the unit very close to the bar, though; it would have been better to put them on the upper edge instead.

The location for the big Garmin logo is undoubtedly chosen for visibility, but in terms of function, it might have been better to put the two buttons on the lower edge up here instead.

The fact that every operation is performed on the device itself is bound to have its proponents and critics. Wahoo Fitness uses an app-based system for its ELEMNT line of computers, for example, and it’s certainly easier in many ways to use the larger screen and richer display on your smartphone, such as when trying to configure various data screens. That said, it’s a less arduous process on the Edge 130 relative to more complicated units such as Garmin’s Edge 1030; with fewer things to choose from, you just don’t need to scroll through as many pull-down menus with tiny little buttons.

Linking to a smartphone carries its own pitfalls, too. You can’t program an ELEMNT computer at all if you don’t have a phone paired, for example, and linking those advanced connectivity features introduces a whole host of complications and potential errors that are often due to the phone, not the computer.

Regardless, the Edge 130 is highly responsive. Unlike the original Edge 500, which was compatible only with the US-based GPS satellite network, the Edge 130 works with the GLONASS and Galileo systems. Combined with predictive satellite tracking, I found the Edge 130 to regularly lock on to its position within 5-10 seconds, whereas the old Edge 500 could sometimes be frustratingly slow to “find” itself. Claimed battery life for the Edge 130 is pegged at “up to 15 hours,” and in reality, I got pretty close to that when running without any paired accessories.

Ghosts in the machine

As much as I want to believe that Garmin has rid itself of any software demons with the Edge 130, a couple of glitches I noticed make me hesitant to celebrate just yet.

Weather reports didn’t always show up the way they should, and the Garmin Connect app didn’t always detect the device without some fiddling. Strangely enough, that old Edge 500 relied on a physical cabled connection to a laptop or desktop computer for post-ride uploads, not a fancy wireless link, and it always worked just fine. Go figure. Granted, this issue may be related more to the smartphone connection and/or the app, not the Edge 130 itself, but once again, the fact that a paired phone is required for some of the more advanced features introduces more possibility for malfunctions.

It seems logical that the Edge 130’s pared-down functionality relative to more advanced Garmin models should make it more reliable. However, there was still one instance I had where the unit got confused as to where it was. I had already left Wild Horse Circle several minutes before this message presented itself.

My Edge 130 also seemed to lose track of where it was briefly during one ride, where an alert popped up telling me that a certain segment was approaching. However, I had already left the area several minutes prior, but yet the Edge 130 told me that I was getting closer. This is another instance where the hiccup could be more related to third-party software than the Edge 130 itself, but it’s a little concerning regardless.

A sign of things to come?

I am hardly a luddite when it comes to technology and bicycles, and I don’t subscribe to a less-is-more philosophy across the board. But there is a lot to be said to only having as much as you need, and not a lot more, when it comes to electronics. That seems to go double with Garmin’s Edge family of GPS cycling computers, which have certainly had more than their fair share of hiccups over the years. Every additional line of code introduces more potential for error, and few things are more frustrating than technology that doesn’t work as intended.

Garmin first showed off this simpler approach with the tiny Edge 20 and Edge 25 GPS computers that were introduced back in 2015, which provided little more than the absolute basics. Those units were arguably too pared-down, though, whereas this little Edge 130 feels just about right: not too big, not too small; not too complicated, not too simple. It’s the Goldilocks of Garmin’s range, no question.

If you’ve been faithfully holding on to your aging (and now, probably ailing) Edge 500, have faith: a proper successor has finally arrived, and hopefully it holds up as well over the long run, too. Time will tell.

Find out more about the Edge 130 at garmin.com.

The Garmin Edge 130 can tell you which direction you’re heading in, where you’ve been, and if you preload a course, where you’re going. Otherwise, though, there aren’t any proper mapping or navigation functions to be had here.

The digital compass can be very handy for trail use.

Elevation profiles are also available on the Garmin Edge 130.

On-board ANT+ and Bluetooth wireless functionality allows the Edge 130 to pair with a wide range of accessories. Shimano’s Di2 electronic transmission isn’t one of them, however.

If you so choose, you can get notifications for incoming text messages and phone calls, too.

The Edge 130’s monochrome LCD is extremely bright, crisp, and legible, even in intense sunlight.

When paired with Garmin’s rear-facing Varia Radar unit, the Edge 130 will provide audible and visual alerts for motor vehicles approaching from behind.

I like the simplicity of physical buttons relative to a touchscreen, but these two on the lower edge of the Edge 130 can be problematic as some out-front mounts can put the unit too close to the bar to access them.

The Garmin Edge 130 is impressively tiny. Here, it’s compared side-to-side with Wahoo Fitness’s ELEMNT Bolt (left).

The back of the Garmin Edge 130 features a micro-USB port, Garmin’s ubiquitous quarter-turn mount interface, and a small loop at the lower edge where a security lanyard can be attached if desired. Tucked safely in the center of the quarter-turn interface is the intake for the barometric altimeter.

The new Garmin Edge 130 (left) is substantially smaller and lighter than the old Edge 500 (right), but its screen is nearly as large (and far more crisp).

The post Garmin Edge 130 review: The spiritual successor to the Edge 500 appeared first on CyclingTips.

When road disc bikes were first unveiled, Shimano was reasonably quick to bring suitable brakes and wheels to market, but none could be counted as high-end products. That all changed when Shimano unveiled the new Dura-Ace R9100 series for 2017 that included its vision for a high-end disc brake groupset.

The new ensemble of Dura-Ace components included a range of road disc wheels with a fresh pair of carbon rim profiles — C40 and C60 — that was studiously developed to suit tubulars and tubeless clinchers. In this review, Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom takes a close look at what the new road disc wheels have to offer, paying particular attention to the mid-profile C40 for tubeless clinchers.

Shimano’s recent overhaul of its Dura-Ace components for 2017 was extensive, to say the least, with the company producing four discrete ensembles incorporating both mechanical and electronic transmissions as well as rim and disc brakes. The new R9100 collection also included a range of new wheelsets, and most notably, the company’s first all-carbon road clinchers. There was a catch, though: the new all-carbon clinchers were disc-only while the rim brake versions would continue with carbon-laminated aluminium rims.

Given the problems that rim brakes can create for carbon clinchers, Shimano’s steadfast devotion to carbon-laminated rims is understandable. If nothing else, the scale of Shimano’s production means that a tiny safety issue in terms of percentages would still have an impact on a significant number of cyclists and mar its reputation.

By contrast, Dura-Ace racing tubulars have featured all-carbon rims for several years, so it’s clear that Shimano is not wholly cautious with the material. Instead, the company’s approach appears carefully considered, so it’s really not surprising to see Shimano’s first all-carbon clincher rims being developed for disc-equipped bikes.

As reported in our initial look at the R9100 Dura-Ace range, there are four road disc wheelsets on offer, one pair to suit tubular tyres, and another pair to suit tubeless clinchers. All make use of the same hubs and spokes with a choice of two rim profiles for each tyre system, C40 and C60, which are 37mm and 60mm tall, respectively.

C40-TL: the most versatile choice

For the majority of riders, the tubeless-ready C40-TL will be the most alluring option in Shimano’s new range of Dura-Ace road disc wheels (all of which wear the same R9170 catalogue number). After all, tubular tyres are simply too inconvenient to use on a daily basis, and a mid-profile rim like the C40 is well suited to year-round use because it won’t be troubled by crosswinds like the taller C60 profile.

As mentioned above, all R9170 wheels feature the same hubs, straight-pull spokes, and external alloy nipples. Spoke counts and lacing patterns are also identical, and like all of Shimano’s wheels, they are manufactured in the company’s Malaysian facility. The tubular wheelsets are significantly lighter than the tubeless models, though: the C40-TU (tubular) is over 200g lighter than the C40-TL, while the C60-TU is 140g lighter than the C60-TL.

There is one other difference between R9170 tubeless and tubular rims, and that is the external width of each rim. The tubeless rim measures 24mm wide while the tubular is 28mm. Nevertheless, both rims share the same D2 rim profile that was refined with the help of wind tunnel testing. Shimano is not making any of this data public, so for those that need hard data, they will have to wait until independent tests are published.

The C40-TL and C60-TL are tubeless ready and arrive with suitable tape and valves installed.

Be that as it may, I suspect that the tubular rims are a little more aerodynamic than the tubeless equivalents due to a sleeker rim/tyre interface. And while the C40 may offer some reduction in drag, it won’t be in the same realm as the C60. If Shimano has done its homework, then the C60 should achieve the same performance (or better) than the C75 it replaces while offering the rider some respite from crosswinds.

Shimano has long championed the value of wheel systems, where the design of each component is diligently engineered to complement the others, and the result is a wheel that is greater than the sum of its parts. The downside of this approach is that it results in proprietary parts that cannot be replaced at short notice, however Shimano does make a range of spares for its wheels, includes hub parts and spokes.

The primary goal of developing these wheel systems is to create a reliable and safe product. Interestingly, there is no weight limit for any of the R9170 range, which provides some measure of the confidence Shimano has in the strength and durability of these wheels.

Halving the number of spokes on the non-drive-side of the rear wheel means more spoke tension is required, which is a better match for the high tension on the drive-side spokes.

One key aspect of this strategy is to address the imbalance in spoke tension for the rear wheel, which is always higher on the drive-side. This is where Shimano’s OptBal spoke system comes into play, which is simply a re-badged version of triplet spoke lacing (just like Fulcrum’s 2:1 spoke ratio and Campagnolo’s G3 lacing pattern). By using half as many spokes (eight) on the non-drive-side of the wheel, and employing a radial lacing pattern (which keeps the length of the spokes as short as possible), more spoke tension is required to match the drive-side spokes.

In the case of the C40-TL (and the rest of the R9170 wheel range), this spoke lacing strategy is complemented with carefully refined hub geometry that attends to the spoke tension while providing robust bracing angles for lateral stiffness. I found that the tension on the non-drive-side spokes of the C40-TL rear wheel sent for review was virtually identical to the drive-side of the wheel, which is something that is not normally seen for any rear wheel with an asymmetrical hub. Indeed, it trumps Campagnolo’s and Fulcrum’s best efforts, where non-drive-side tension is ~70% of the drive-side, and promises to further reduce spoke fatigue.

The OptBal system is not applied to the front wheel even though it also has an asymmetrical hub (the left hub flange is offset by the disc rotor). Instead, a conventional two-cross lacing pattern is used for the 24 spokes in the wheel, with the result that spoke tension on the right side of the wheel was two-thirds that of the left side. While this may seem like an oversight, I suspect that the extra forces associated with front-end braking and the disc brake played a role in this decision.

Like the rear wheel, 24 spokes are used to build the front wheel, but that number is evenly split, so 12 spokes are used on each side of the wheel.

Out of the box

The R9170 C40-TL wheelset sent for review by Shimano Australia weighed 1,566g (front, 705g; rear, 861g) with rim tape. Out of the box, the rims were ready for tubeless tyres with tubeless valves installed.

In the first instance, I was able to install a set of standard clinchers (28c Vittoria Rubino Pro) with inner tubes without any difficulty. The tyres were an easy fit without levers, and they were quick to seat once inflated. Installing a set of tubeless tyres (25c Schwalbe Pro One) was a little more difficult, but that’s the nature of the tubeless beast. With an air compressor on hand, the tyres were quick to inflate and seat with a few loud pops. After that, they stayed inflated and I was able to ignore the tyres.

The C40-TL and C60-TL rims have a 17mm rim bed, which has become the industry norm for modern rims. It’s a little wider than rims used to be, and any road tyre will puff up a little wider than usual (for example, a 25c Schwalbe Pro One measured 26.5mm at 70psi). With that said, other brands are producing rims with wider beds (19mm or greater) for road/all-road use, so Shimano is far from the cutting edge with its tubeless rims.

Shimano recommends tyre sizes of 23-32c for the C40-TL (and C60-TL), which will suit most road and all-road bikes in use today. However, the 24mm external width of the tubeless rims places a limit on the tyre size that can be used without interfering with the aerodynamics of the wheels. This is not a major restriction, but I can’t see any sense in a buyer opting for the aerodynamic appeal of these wheels and then fitting 32c tyres for extra comfort/traction.

The C40-TL hubs accommodate 12mm diameter thru-axles with 100mm and 142mm spacing for the front and rear, respectively. Both have become the default specification for road disc bikes, but it’s worth noting that it is not possible to convert the hubs to other sizes, such as a 15mm thru-axle for the front, or standard quick-release axles.

Both hubs roll on conventional cup-and-cone bearings with stainless steel balls. In a market dominated by hubsets with cartridge bearings, this may seem like a throwback to an earlier era, but Shimano (like Campagnolo/Fulcrum), believes in the traditional design. If nothing else, it is far easier to service and adjust the bearings; all that is required is a few oversized cone spanners.

Aside from accommodating a 12mm diameter thru-axle, the front hub is a conventional cup-and-cone design.

A pair of 17mm cone spanners is required to remove the lock nut.

Once the adjusting cone has been removed, the axle slides out. Bearing shields on each side of the hub will keep the bearings in place.

The bearing shield is easy to pry off with a flat screwdriver.

The ball bearings sit in a retainer that makes it easier to handle them.

Wipe out the old grease, smear on some new stuff, and the hub is ready for re-assembly.

Front axle assembly: note that one cone is fixed, which simplifies installation and adjustment.

Center Lock mount for the disc rotor and straight-pull spokes.

A two-cross lacing pattern is used for both sides of the wheel.

The assembly of the rear hub is largely the same as the front, however a combination of 17mm and 19mm cone spanners is required to undo the lock nut.

The lock nut is easy to unwind…

… as is the adjusting cone.

Once the axle has been removed, the bearing shield can be pried off.

The non-drive-side bearings are held in a retainer.

If the inner race is ever damaged, it can’t be replaced.

The drive-side bearings are not held in a retainer, so it’s more difficult to remove them and clean up this part of the hub.

The rear axle assembly is just as simple as the front.

The rear wheel makes use of straight-pull spokes with a three-cross lacing pattern on the drive-side…

… versus radial lacing for the non-drive-side spokes. Note also the difference in spoke count.

The freehub body also continues with Shimano’s sealed design, which cannot be serviced, only replaced once the internals become contaminated or degrade. The body itself is made from titanium, which will resist sprocket-bite, and is only available to suit Shimano/SRAM cassettes (up to and including 11-speed).

Installing the disc rotors was quick and easy thanks to Shimano’s Center Lock design. For the uninitiated, any Center Lock rotor simply slides onto a splined core and is held in place with threaded lockring that resembles a cassette lockring (it also requires the same splined tool as Shimano’s cassette lockring).

I’ve already mentioned that the C40-TL is delivered with tubeless rim tape installed, but in the event of a broken spoke, owners will have to contend with a unique requirement. That’s because the rim bed is not dotted with holes for the spoke nipples, but larger rectangular openings, which creates a challenge for sealing the rim for tubeless use. For this reason, Shimano created a special “stainless steel tape”, and panels of the stuff are used to cover each opening. These adhesive panels are single-use items, so owners will need to have a replacement on hand should they ever need to replace a spoke or nipple.

With a combination of all-carbon rims, high-end hubs, and the Dura-Ace label, the R9170 C40-TL promises to be an expensive wheelset, and it is: AU$2,400/US$2,000/£2,000/€2,200. However, it’s not as expensive as some brands that offer many of the same features, but it won’t catch the eye of bargain hunters, who will be more impressed with cheaper offerings (such as the Prime RP-38 road disc wheelset).

After the ride

I had a fuss-free experience from the moment I pulled the C40-TL out of the box, and while the wheels never managed to dazzle me, they lived up to expectations for a mid-profile carbon wheelset.

To start with, they were versatile performers. They were light enough to take into the hills and I could attack valley descents without fear that a sudden crosswind would blow me off-course. That’s not to say that the front wheel was completely untroubled by crosswinds, but it remained quite predictable in windy conditions.

The C40-TL was reasonably responsive, too. As a sub-1,600g wheelset, they were light enough to spin up pretty quickly while offering a certain amount of agility, but they couldn’t match the performance of a lighter wheelset with low-profile carbon rims (e.g. the Hunt 30Carbon Aero Disc). For those riders looking to trade up from a heavier stock alloy wheelset, I expect the C40-TL will impress, which is what I found when I fitted them to Trek’s Emonda SL 6 Disc.

The ride quality of the C40-TL was unremarkable, which is to say they weren’t overly stiff in any regard. The wheels never felt harsh when hopping curbs and they never created any unnecessary vibrations on uneven surfaces. When it came to sprinting out of the saddle, they felt sure and robust under load instead of flimsy and uncertain. Of course, these impressions are subject to all sorts of caveats, including tyre size and pressure along with the stiffness of the bike, but after experimenting with a couple of different tyre sizes and bikes, I can say I was never disappointed by these wheels.

The wheels always rolled nicely, but if the 37mm rim profile helped my efficiency, then it was too small to notice. In this regard, the best any rider can hope for is a nuance. What I find is more significant is that the sight of a taller rim often helps me find a more aggressive frame of mind for my cycling, and I will go faster, but only because I’m inspired to drive the bike harder. As such, I don’t expect the C40-TL will overhaul the capabilities of any buyer, but they will probably have a good time using them.

After putting the C40-TL to use for a month, it was that enjoyment that proved to be the most consistent feature of this wheelset: a versatile pair of wheels that was easy to use and always a pleasure to ride. The rich gloss finish always looked classy, too, and I can imagine that having spent the money, I’d feel quite pleased with my purchase.

Over the longer term, though, I expect the C40-TL will really start to shine thanks to Shimano’s considered approach, the robust build, and the balance of spoke tension for the rear wheel. Strictly speaking, these are all aspects that remain unverified, however the potential is there. And without brake pads constantly scrubbing away at the sidewalls, the only part of these wheels that will suffer wear and tear are the spokes (provided the hubs are serviced at regular intervals).

Needless to say, the wheels did not come out of true during the course of the review period, neither hub developed any play, and there were no issues with tubeless tyres leaking air. As for the sound of the freehub, it was as quiet as any other Shimano freehub, generating a gentle click that often went unnoticed.

Summary and final thoughts

In the past, I’ve often described the rims on a road bike as a consumable product because it was inevitable that they would have to be replaced as the brake track was rubbed away with use. The introduction of disc brakes changes all that, and while a crash can still ruin a wheel, road disc wheelsets should enjoy a significantly longer service life than their rim brake equivalents.

As such, I find it much easier to justify the extra expense of a high-end carbon wheelset like the C40-TL. That this wheelset ticks a lot of boxes — versatile performer, classy presentation, easy to service hubs, reasonably light and responsive, tubeless-ready, and highly enjoyable — adds to its appeal, and the asking price is not too bad, either. I would prefer wider rims, though, and have a feeling that 17mm rim beds will soon become outdated as wider versions become more widespread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Shimano Dura-Ace R9170 C40-TL tubeless road disc wheelset review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Allied Cycle Works is not your average bicycle company. The brainchild of several industry veterans, Allied doesn’t design and engineer its carbon-fiber frame and forks in-house only to then contract manufacturing overseas. Instead, the entire process is performed under the same roof in Little Rock, Arkansas. This compact supply chain offers a number of logistical benefits, and also helps Allied make some fantastic bikes in a surprisingly short timeline. Case in point: the Alfa Allroad model reviewed here, which went from concept to production in less than 18 months, and yet can still go toe-to-toe with the bigger brands in terms of both price and performance. It’s not a custom bike in the traditional sense, but it’s certainly not cookie-cutter, either — and it’s absolutely fantastic to ride.

Doing things differently

Tony Karklins was always troubled by the way mainstream companies traditionally went about making carbon-fiber bicycle frames when he was managing director at Orbea USA. Although nearly all of the design and engineering work could be done fairly quickly, and the information shared readily, it took ages to see the concepts turned into physical samples because they were being made so far away. Simple revisions could also take weeks or months to execute depending on production cycles — a painfully long wait when each season was so short.

Karklins had a vision of doing everything under a single roof, and in the United States. But there are reasons nearly every company contracts its manufacturing overseas, especially when it comes to carbon. Carbon-fiber frame production is extremely labor-intensive, and American labor has been historically expensive as compared to what was available in Asia.

While many all-road bikes make a fair number of compromises to provide extra versatility, the Allied Alfa Allroad feels like it’s given up little in the transition from its roots as a pure road machine. That said, the ride quality may be firmer than some might prefer.

Times have changed, though, and as China and Taiwan have advanced economically, so have wages. On paper, it’s still cheaper to manufacture frames in Asia, but the advantage is steadily eroding, and for some, the logistical challenges of separating R&D and manufacturing by thousands of kilometers is becoming less palatable.

Even so, building a new American frame manufacturing company from the ground up is no easy (or inexpensive) task, but one company’s demise proved to be Karklins’ phoenix rising from the ashes. Guru Cycles was a small Canadian custom frame builder, offering some of the most highly sought-after machines in a variety of materials, and across multiple disciplines. But by early 2016, the company had taken on far too much water to stay solvent, and not long after shutting its doors for good, all of Guru’s assets were sent to the auction block.

Karklins saw an opportunity.

And so he packed an overnight bag and flew north with a few investors to try his luck. As it turned out, Karklins was the only person to bid on the entire lot, including all of the milling machines, the remaining frame parts and tubing, and Guru’s massive paint booth. Needless to say, the stay ended up being a bit longer than originally anticipated.

Fun fact: The period following “Made Here” denotes the geographic location of Little Rock, Arkansas, where Allied Cycle Works builds the Alfa Allroad frame and fork.

Karklins didn’t even know the full scope of what he’d acquired until six semi trucks hauling full-sized shipping containers showed up at his door in Little Rock.

The stars further aligned in that two high-level engineers from Specialized, Sam Pickman and Chris Meertens, also happened to be fostering the same dream as Karklins, and were just about to set after it on their own when they heard about what had happened at the Guru auction. Pickman and Meertens were mentally prepared for the rigors of going at it alone, but now they didn’t have to.

Also joining the team on the engineering side was long-time Guru employee and carbon-fiber fabrication specialist Olivier Lavigeuer.

Classy.

Jim and Sarah Cunningham, who founded CyclArt in 1976, were brought on to handle paint and finish work. Karklins hired a small group of skilled labor from the surrounding area to handle tasks such as carbon fiber lay-up, bonding, testing, and assembly. Almost by happenstance, Karklins’ dream of producing carbon bikes in the United States was becoming a reality, and HIA Velo (Handmade in America) was born.

Two bikes in one

HIA Velo debuted the Alfa carbon road bike in March 2017 under the catchier-sounding Allied Cycle Works brand name, barely a year after the trucks unloaded in Little Rock. It offered traditional geometry and aesthetics, clearance for 28mm tires (or 30mm tires in the disc-brake version) and an emphasis on overall ride quality and long-term durability instead of ultra-low weight and cutting-edge aerodynamics.

Four months later was the debut of the mixed-surface Alfa Allroad review here, equipped with (very) slightly relaxed handling and a disc-only format with room for 38mm tires, but still sporting the same traditional look and feel. It’s not particularly flashy, but then again, it’s not really supposed to be.

The top tube is nearly level on the Allied Alfa Allroad, which lends a more classic look to the bike’s profile. Buyers who opt for the taller front end get the same top tube, but with almost 20mm of extra stack depending on the size.

Allied’s unique way of doing business was instrumental in bringing the Alfa and Alfa Allroad to market in such a short period of time. Most of the carbon lay-up and tube shape revisions were designed and tested on the computer before a single physical sample was produced. From there, Pickman’s team could make additional test samples in a matter of hours or days instead of weeks and months, and also test them in-house in a similarly contracted time frame. There may have been a lot of midnight oil burned during this development period, but even just being able to do so was a relative luxury; usually, engineers send updated drawings to Asia, and then wait, and wait, and wait.

Furthering helping matters is how closely the Alfa and Alfa Allroad are related to each other; they actually share identical main triangles (save for a small modification where the chainstays are joined). Each bike gets its own seatstays and chainstays, along with its own dedicated fork (Allied produces the carbon forks in-house, which is more rare in the industry than it is for frames). Up front, interchangeable molds allow for two head tube heights per size on both frame models.

On paper, the Alfa Allroad frameset might not blow anyone away. Claimed weight isn’t freakishly low at 920g for a raw 56cm frame, and Allied doesn’t make any bold claims about stiffness, compliance, or aerodynamics. The tubes are nominally round with fairly subtle shaping throughout, the wedge-type internal binder secures a conventional 27.2mm-diameter seatpost, and down below is an aluminum insert that accepts a good old fashioned English threaded bottom bracket.

The chainstays may appear a little small, but they’re actually quite bulbous. Note the size of the Campagnolo carbon crankarm for comparison.

Up front, the integrated headset envelops a tapered 1 1/8-to-1 1/4in steerer tube, there are 12mm thru-axles and flat-mount disc brake interfaces at both ends, and the internal cable routing can be configured for mechanical or electronic drivetrains, with just a bit of flair coming from the swappable eagle-shaped aluminum plate that covers the entry point on the top of the down tube.

As if the classic proportions weren’t enough of a hint already that Allied was going more for timeless, long-term performance here, three key areas of the frame are reinforced with Innegra S fibers. Featured at the seatstays, forward section of the top tube, and the fork crown and steerer base, these “high-modulus polypropylene” fibers are said to greatly improve the impact resistance of the tubes to which they’re applied, and also help hold everything together in the event that a crash is so destructive that the tube actually breaks.

Built to last: One emerging bike brand’s quest for more durable carbon fiber

Furthering the classic intent is the overall frame geometry. Allied easily could have jumped on the gravel bike bandwagon with an emphasis on stability, huge tire clearances, 700c/650b wheel-and-tire interchangeability, and a taller front end. But instead, the Alfa Allroad is more of a rally car than a SUV, emphasizing quickness and sportiness more than outright capability. Gimmicky add-ons are nowhere to be found, nor is there a hint of aerodynamic consideration given to the Alfa Allroad’s shape.

“In the Allroad, we really wanted to make a road bike with unsurpassed versatility that excelled in on-road performance, but could seamlessly transition and give up very little to purpose-built gravel bikes,” explained Pickman. “While the fantasy of going on three-day gravel adventures is incredibly appealing, the reality is that most people have to squeeze in their rides. The Allroad allows you to ride to trailheads, rip around in some dirt, then pop back out on the road and race home.”

“The weight and stiffness give a great all-around ride that focuses on really great handling, especially on the road,” Pickman continued. “That said, we are certainly not opposed to lighter weight as long as it doesn’t sacrifice durability and ride quality. Aero is a tough one. In my opinion, if you want to get meaningful benefit from aero, you have to sacrifice ride quality quite a bit. I have yet to ride an aero bike that I really enjoyed. I see the need for aero bikes and we are in no way opposed to them, but as our first offering, it felt important for us to go to market with a bike that we truly loved riding, and that bike is without a doubt the Alfa. When we do come to market with an aero bike, it will have to meet our high standard of ride quality, because what’s the point if the bike isn’t fun to ride?”

Apart from the seat cluster, the design of the Allied Alfa Allroad is all smooth lines and graceful transitions.

Allied offers the Alfa Allroad in six sizes, from 49 to 61cm, each with optional extended head tubes that raise the stack height by about 15-20mm, depending on size. Chainstay lengths are 420mm across the board, but bottom bracket drop and head tube angle vary according to size, from 71.6 to 67.6mm, and 72 to 73.8°. A longish 48mm fork rake on the Alfa Allroad yields trail figures between 61.5 and 50.1mm, for a responsive front-end feel across the board.

One of the reasons Guru shut down was its immense range of customization, which, according to Karklins, simply wasn’t scalable. As a result, Allied only offers custom geometry on the the Echo, a tube-to-tube carbon road frame that was originally intended to be Guru’s new Photon RX. That isn’t possible with the modular monocoque construction of the Alfa and Alfa Allroad, but both are available with custom paint, including a stunning chrome-like finish that is truly lustworthy. There are also multiple complete builds (including with Rotor’s rare UNO fully hydraulic groupset), as well as bare framesets for DIYers.

My 52cm Alfa Allroad test sample was built with a Campagnolo Super Record EPS disc-brake groupset, Industry Nine AR25 aluminum tubeless clincher wheels, and Fizik carbon fiber finishing kit. Total weight without pedals was a fantastic 7.48kg (16.49lb).

A vision in green

Allied went for a road bike-like feel for the Alfa Allroad, and after spending nine solid months on my test sample (resplendent in PPG “Time to Lime” paint), I’d say the company hit the bullseye.

I spent as least as much time with the Alfa Allroad off-pavement as I did on tarmac, and even hit a fair bit of singletrack.

Bikes in this category offer a range of ride characteristics that’s far broader than what we see on the road. At one end of the spectrum is the Trek Checkpoint, with a couch-like ride that glides across the ground, but without a generous amount of feedback for the rider. That one seems best suited for someone who is eager to do some long-distance jaunts on mixed terrain, and most definitely doesn’t want to feel at all beat-up in the process. In fact, that person perhaps doesn’t want to feel anything at all, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Scott Addict Gravel’s enormous carbon tubes make for a hyper-efficient feel that’s an absolute rocket ship when you mash on the pedals. It’s a wickedly quick machine, but also one that relies entirely on its higher-volume tires to provide even a smidgeon of comfort.

Handling characteristics vary substantially with gravel/all-road bikes, too. That Checkpoint is soft-riding, but is nevertheless one of the quicker-handling bikes of the bunch. Conversely, the Addict Gravel’s lazier front end demands a more ham-fisted pilot willing to manhandle it through tighter bends.

The seatstays take a dead-straight path from end to end.

The Alfa Allroad strikes its own unique blend. It’s somewhere in between the Checkpoint and Addict Gravel in terms of ride quality, with a firm-but-not-unreasonably-so personality. It relies more on tire squish than frame flex to help shield the rider from impact forces, like the Scott, but the way it does so isn’t quite as extreme. There’s still a bit of give, and very good damping overall, but as is the case with so many bikes, the rear end rides more smoothly than the front, which is still a bit stiffer vertically than I’d prefer. It wasn’t until later in the testing process, after installed a Redshift Sports ShockStop suspension stem with the firmest elastomer kit, that I got the front-end feel I was ultimately looking for. (A standalone review of the Redshift Sports ShockStop suspension stem is coming soon).

In terms of handling, the Alfa Allroad is definitely the nimble beast that Allied intended. It’s quick and darty, and eager to change its path when asked to do so. Coupled with the relatively short (for the category) wheelbase, the Alfa Allroad is far from a relaxed cruiser that’s ok with you dozing off at the wheel. In fact, it’s much more akin to a traditional cyclocross bike in this sense compared with most gravel bikes on the market.

Die-hard gravel riders will invariably be put off by those road-handling manners, but that’s also what makes it such a superbly versatile machine if your days are truly spent on a mix of paved and unpaved surfaces, as opposed to tackling something like the Dirty Kanza 200.

And versatile the Alfa Allroad most certainly is. In fact, it’s almost two-faced.

Allied officially approves the Alfa Allroad for tires up to 38mm-wide (33mm-wide ones are pictured here).

Lots of drop-bar bikes on the market today claim to deliver “all-in-one” performance, but the Alfa Allroad comes closest to actually delivering on that of everything I’ve ridden to date, and the one whose personality seems most affected by swapping different wheels and tires. The well-heeled Alfa Allroad owner would have two — maybe even three — wheel-and-tire setups at their disposal to suit the ride at hand: a full-blown road arrangement for fast group rides on pavement; and a wider and burlier gravel configuration for exploring backroads and singletrack.

I regularly swapped between the Industry Nine AR25 wheelset and 33mm-wide Schwalbe X-One Speed tires, and the deeper-section Enve SES 4.5 AR Disc carbon clinchers shod with 28mm-wide (30.5mm-wide actual width) Specialized S-Works Tubeless tires. Set up in the latter configuration, I never felt like I was losing anything relative to a traditional road bike in terms of speed or efficiency, and the smaller tires also brought the additional benefit of slightly reducing the trail dimension for snappier handling. As a nice bonus, I also dropped about 200g of rotating weight in the process.

As compared to a dedicated road racer, the Alfa Allroad in that setup felt just as efficient, just as quick, and provided just as aggressive a position.

The bolt heads for the flat-mount rear disc-brake caliper stick out a bit from the underside of the chainstay. It would have been nice if those were recessed for a cleaner look, but that’s definitely splitting hairs. Overall, the area is quite well done, and the direct-mount design (no adapters required) of Campagnolo’s new hydraulic disc brakes certainly helps.

On the other hand, maxing out the 38mm tire clearance with a set of Specialized Sawtooth tires brought out the other side of the Alfa Allroad’s personality. The bigger, heavier, and slower-rolling tires toned down the frame’s responsiveness, but it also allowed for more rigorous exploring of local trails. Pinch flats are a regular occurrence here in Colorado on account of the persistently rocky ground, but those obviously became less of a concern with the larger air volume as compared to those Schwalbe X-One Speeds, and much hooliganism commenced as a result.

Ultimately, I spent most of my time on the Industry Nine AR25 and Schwalbe X-One Speed combination, merely adjusting pressure depending on the day. Only occasionally did I wish for more conditions-specific rolling stock (at least for solo rides), and the more I rode the Alfa Allroad, the more I questioned my need for multiple drop-bar bikes. I wouldn’t say that the Alfa Allroad can do everything with equal aplomb, but it excels at the type of riding I’m most apt to do these days: fast solo rides on pavement and dirt, mixed with a healthy dose of reasonable-condition singletrack and backwoods paths.

Growing pains

Allied Cycle Works/HIA Velo may have a lot of accumulated industry experience behind it, but I still noted a few details on my Alfa Allroad tester that I’d like to see ironed out moving forward.

The internal seatpost binder held tight and stayed quiet throughout testing, and the bolt is reasonably easy to access with a torque wrench or multi-tool. It’d be nice if Allied were to include some sort of rubber cover to keep water out, though, especially given the top-facing steel bolt, which is sure to corrode given enough road spray, rainfall, or washings.

Electronic transmissions share the same port as mechanical ones, but the treatment in electronic guise somehow looks a bit clumsy.

Allied’s convertible internal routing system is visually neat, what with its stylized eagle-shaped aluminum plate covering the access port on the top tube, but things aren’t as refined out back. The Alfa Allroad frame uses the same exit point on the chainstay for both wired electronic and mechanical transmissions, but the result isn’t as finished-looking for the former. The vestigial hole for the front derailleur could use some sort of cosmetic cap, too.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t lament the lack of fender mounts on the Alfa Allroad. Given the generous clearances on tap, plus the versatility that the design provides, it’s unfortunate that Allied didn’t include an elegant way to let you keep enjoying all of that when road surfaces are wet. There’s plenty of room here, and given that Allied manufactures all of its own stuff, one would think there’s certainly the freedom to do so.

A carbon bike with soul?

One thing I can’t complain about much, however, is the price, which is not only competitive with many major brands, but even manages to undercut them in certain configurations.

Considering the Alfa Allroad’s US origins, that’s quite an achievement — basically all of the cost-savings are achieved purely by maintaining an efficient process from start to finish instead of minimizing labor costs.

Speaking of which, many riders like to talk about how hand-built bikes made out of metal have “soul,” whereas molded carbon-fiber bikes are somehow cold and lifeless. However, that can be said of any mass-produced frame produced by some nameless face in a factory you’ve never seen or heard of, be it metal or otherwise. For sure, neither the Alfa or Alfa Allroad are bespoke creations handled by a single craftsman from start to finish, but it’s still real people building these things.

If you were to purchase an Allied Alfa Allroad, chances are good that you’ll never actually speak to one of the people who laid hands on it while it was being made. But that said, it’s worth a reminder that carbon frames are built by people, too, and at least for American customers, the ones at Allied are a little closer to home than usual.

alliedcycleworks.com

The Allied Alfa Allroad is a prime example of what an all-road bike can (and perhaps, should) be: light, responsive, nimble, and capable.

Not a car in sight. Just the way it should be, and an experience the Alfa Allroad easily lets you seek out.

A quick swap of wheels and tires, and the Allied Alfa Allroad is a superb road bike with quick handling, a stout chassis, and an aggressive riding position.

Conventional 25mm-wide road tires would suit the Allied Alfa Allroad just fine, of course, but it’s better with bigger-volume treads like the 28c Specialized S-Works Tubeless (which, when mounted to these Enve 4.5 AR Disc wheels, measure closer to 31mm).

Allied equips the Alfa Allroad with a conventional 68mm-wide threaded bottom bracket for easy servicing, but you can see how the down tube, seat tube, and chainstays make full use of the available space.

The top tube appears to flow right into the seatstays.

Alllied did a nice job of incorporating the wedge-type seatpost binder without adding a lot of visual bulk to the area.

Should I have opted for the taller head tube on the test bike? Maybe, but regardless, it’s nice to see that Allied offers buyers the option.

The top tube sports a rounded rectangular shape up at the head tube, but turns more oval as it makes its way back to the seat tube.

Inside the sculpted head tube is a tapered 1 1/8-to-1 1/4in carbon fiber steerer tube.

The threaded thru-axle inserts are replaceable at both ends.

The carbon fiber fork that Allied has designed for the Alfa Allroad is unusual in that it’s only 4mm longer than a conventional road fork, despite having much more tire clearance.

How’d Allied do it, you wonder? By making the crown very shallow.

Allied has done a very nice job of gracing the Alfa Allroad fork with an elegant shape, even with the replaceable 12mm thru-axle hardware and flat-mount disc interface.

33mm-wide tires (such as the Schwalbe X-One Speed shown here) are clearly no problem for the low-profile fork crown and widely spaced legs.

Allied has seemingly borrowed a page from the cyclocross world’s playbook with a smoothly profiled bottom bracket shell that leaves no ledges on which mud and debris can accumulate. The exposed (and in this, case unused) front derailleur cable port is another story.

Allied has taken a very purpose-driven approach to the Alfa Allroad’s frame design. The front triangle is shared with the standard road-going Alfa.

The front brake hose is intelligently routed, with an entry point location that prevents rubbing on the head tube.

The rear flat-mount interface is barely visible beneath the brake caliper. The included 12mm tooled thru-axle has a low-profile head that rests flush with the stays.

Swappable ports that can be converted for electronic or mechanical drivetrains aren’t something that Allied invented, but the company has very cleverly integrated its logo into the design.

The solid paint scheme used on my test bike couldn’t be more understated, aside from the bright green hue, of course, and a few bits of metallic lettering.

Understated and elegant. Allied’s story won’t resonate with everyone, but it will undoubtedly strike a chord with many.

HIA Velo was founded by Tony Karklins, who was formerly the managing director of Orbea USA. When he heard that Guru Cycles had gone out of business and that all of its assets were going up for auction, he flew up to Canada mostly on a whim. But as it turns out, he was the only bidder who wanted the entire lot, and all of it was eventually transported down to Little Rock, Arkansas, where Karklins would eventually use that equipment to realize his dream of building carbon fiber bicycle frames in the United States. “I entered cycling as a bike shop kid and junior racer,” he said. “The movie Breaking Away forever changed my life. I can watch it again and again. But I knew my racing days were numbered when I was 15 or 16 and lined up against a brash kid from Texas that won our race and bridged up to the senior race that had started nearly 10 minutes before us that day. Yep, it was Lance. When I was 18 or 19, I visited Italy for my first time and toured a few factories including De Rosa and Casati. I will never forget that feeling of watching those masters, with torch in hand, building world-class machines. That has forever inspired me. I take enormous pride in what we are building at Allied Cycle Works. We are doing what others said was impossible. Don’t get me wrong, it’s hard work, but it is the right way to work. Our investment flows into job creation and training for the American worker and not into large quantities of inventory sourced from the cheapest labor possible.” Photo: Dustin Williams.

Engineering director Sam Pickman cut his teeth at Specialized before hooking up his wagon to Tony Karklins’ crazy idea to form a US-based carbon fiber bicycle frame company., and describes himself as a “nerdy 37 year-old guy with a young family who has been obsessed with bikes all my life,” adding, “I have done so many stupid things on a bike — any ride over 200km, doing insanely risky things to avoid extra miles while riding home cracked from training rides, riding poorly made prototypes and getting stranded when they break, traversing over a fresh landslide to avoid doing extra miles, and riding in pitch-black darkness for hours when my light crapped out.” Photo: Dustin Williams.

Paint department manager Jim Cunningham founded CyclArt in 1976, and enjoyed an enviable career of painting bicycle frames. He has an extensive collection of vintage bikes, and also keeps his spray gun trigger finger in peak condition racing slot cars. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Susan Cunningham also works in the paint and finishing department, handling joint overwrapping and paint-masking duties. In addition to being an avid cyclist, she also spends a lot of time hiking, all in the name of feeding her curiosity about the natural world. Photo: Dustin Williams.

If you haven’t gathered by now, carbon lay-up is extremely labor-intensive. Timothy Floyd is another lay-up technician for HIA Velo, and spends as much time outdoors as possible when he isn’t placing swatches of carbon-fiber into molds. Cycling actually really isn’t his thing, though; you’re more likely to find him hunting, fishing, and hiking. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Ileana Perez is one of Allied’s more experienced layup technicians, and also helps with training and product development. Among her favorite things to do? Listen to music, sleep, and go shopping. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Yet another layup technician is Jenny Quiceno, who dreams of traveling and experiencing different cultures. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Vince Daugherty spends his hours at Allied preparing frames to be painted, but his evenings and weekends riding and working on motorcycles. He’s also an avid history buff. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Melissa Smith is another lay-up technician at HIA Velo — a far cry from the faceless robots people sometimes associate with carbon frame manufacturing. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Layup technician Diana Oropeza loads individual plies of pre-preg carbon fiber into the molds that will eventually become parts of each Allied Alfa Allroad frame and fork. Photo: Dustin Williams.

If you buy a complete Allied bike, are you wondering who might build it? It’s this guy, Leif Kruse, who also overwraps the carbon joints at the seatstays and chainstays after they’re bonded, but before they’re sanded. Fun fact: He used to live on a sailboat. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Frame finisher Randy Russell knows a thing or two about making sure a surface is perfect before it’s painted. He spends much of his spare time working on old hot-rod pickup trucks. He’s also an avid hunter and a big fan of American football and baseball. Photo: Dustin Williams.

Jack Daugherty is one of the people at HIA Velo who makes sure each Allied frame that goes out the door is visually perfect. He’s also a former chef with 20 years of experience, a Jiu-Jitsu instructor, and an avid cyclist. As if that weren’t enough, he’s also been married for 17 years, considers himself a semi-professional “cat wrangler,” and the unofficial authority within the company on the Subaru WRX STi. Photo: Dustin Williams.

The post Allied Alfa Allroad long-term review: The antidote to the N+1 rule appeared first on CyclingTips.

With so many new helmets boasting aero benefits, it’s easy to forget that most cyclists don’t give a damn about such marginal gains. Instead, it’s safety, comfort, cooling ability, and low weight that most people look for in a helmet.

First seen at the 2017 Tour de France, Kask’s latest helmet, the Valegro, is the company’s lightest and most ventilated to date. It doesn’t replace the aero-tested and already impressively lightweight Protone, but rather complements it at the top of the range.

If the Valegro were a bike, it’d be an ultralight climbing machine, whereas the Protone would be the lightweight all-rounder with an aero cockpit and wheelset. They’re close, and certainly, they overlap somewhat, but there’s enough of a difference for most to know which features they value most.

I was handed a sample of the new Valegro during this year’s Santos Tour Down Under, and have been testing it since. There is lots to love, but every relationship has its trials.

It’s light. Very light

So light it can sit on a fern.

Weighing in at just 186g for an Australian standard size small (50-56cm), this is an insanely lightweight lid, especially when you consider the relatively bulky leather chinstrap. Australian standards-approved (AS/NZS 2063) helmets are almost always heavier than ones made for European or American markets, too, and so if you’re outside New Zealand or Australia, you can expect an even lower figure.

To put the Valegro’s weight into perspective, a small-sized Kask Mojito helmet weighs 239g, while Kask’s newer Protone is said to weigh 215g. The 30g weight saving seems minimal in terms of absolutes, but it’s more than a 10% reduction on an already lightweight lid.

To achieve such a low weight, Kask created a simple round shape that wastes little material, all while trimming weight at every other possible point. For example, the retention system is minimal, and the side straps are fixed (both the same as the Protone). And with 37 ventilation holes, there’s only so much space left for the supporting foam.

Despite being so light, the lower edge is still protected with a wraparound microshell.

Helping trim weight further, the helmet is rather shallow with no extended coverage for the back of your head or temples. While I can’t comment on the actual safety of the helmet, I can say that Kask at least hasn’t sacrificed everyday durability, with the in-moulded polycarbonate shell extending to the lower edge of the helmet so the underlying foam won’t take too much of a beating in everyday use.

Take a peek inside and there’s no shortage of channels to guide the air from the many vents through the helmet and out the back. The Valegro was supposedly designed with the help of a wind tunnel, but rather than focusing on drag reduction, the time was used to test thermo-cooling. Kask isn’t alone in this approach (Giro used instrumented wind tunnel testing for this also), but it’s a good sign nonetheless.

More important than the number of vents is having clear paths for that air to travel inside the helmet, and the Valegro definitely checks that box.

Look front-on and the Valegro offers clear entry and exit points for air to flow through. The most obvious vents that sit above the brow are kept open and sit away from the forehead, while the padding begins just to the side of the two central vents and extends back from there.

The 5mm-thick multi-layer foam pads are said to be anti-static, anti-bacterial, and moisture transferring, but the amount of padding is fairly minimal overall, with just a few removable strips around the top, and just a tiny bit at the forehead.

How it performs

Helmets are much like saddles: what’s comfortable for one person isn’t likely comfortable for the next. I’ve always preferred more oval-shaped options, and the Valegro fits into this category nicely (pun intended). The “Octo Fit” retention system affords a huge range of vertical, horizontal, and circumferential tuning, and I was able to easily dial it in for a comfortable hold. One small nitpick is that the detents on the retention system are perhaps a little too light, as even a quick flick of my head could sometimes change the settings.

There’s a huge adjustment range on offer.

The fixed strap splitters sit in an ideal location below my ears, though, and also comfortable was the leather chin strap, which is claimed to be minimally irritating, especially for guys with stubble. Kask has used the faux leather pad before, but this was the first time it worked well for me; the one on the otherwise-comfortable Kask Mojito sat too far rearward and pressed on my throat.

One long-standing complaint with Kask helmets is how they often interfere with many popular brands of eyewear. The Valegro addresses this with a small kink in the retention system that creates a gap for sunglass temples. Combined with the retention system’s generous adjustment range, I was finally able to comfortably wear my previously problematic Oakley Radar EVs, eyewear from Kask’s sister-company, KOO, and Ryder’s Roam Fyre. Likewise, even casual eyewear could be slotted in and used without issue.

This feature is still somewhat of a band-aid solution and a bit of a fiddle, especially if you’re putting on your glasses while riding, but I quickly got used to running the eyewear frame closely along my head until the ends found their way underneath the retention cage. This feature may still be a miss if you’re one to really crank down on the retention system, though, as doing so would just uncomfortably push the sunglass arms into your skull.

Subtle ridges provide space for sunglass arms to be slotted between your head and the helmet’s retention straps.

Speaking of sunglasses, the Valegro’s simple round profile works wonders for directly storing eyewear. I was able to easily tuck my Oakleys into the back of the helmet for a secure and flush fit, without having to worry about pointy edges rubbing the lens.

The Valegro also does really well in steamy weather at keeping your head cool, and riders who often find themselves in hot and humid conditions will likely find plenty of joy here. A good testament to the feathery weight, comfort, and ventilation is that I often entirely forgot I was testing this helmet.

With such minimal padding at the brow, there’s not much contingency for what doesn’t get wicked away.

Sweat management could still be a little better, however. The tiny amount of padding at the forehead can quickly get overwhelmed with perspiration, and if there isn’t enough airflow to dry the pads out, it doesn’t take long before sweat finds its way onto your eyebrows. The Valegro doesn’t necessarily perform worse than average in this respect, but helmets with more dedicated systems for keeping sweat out of your eyes, such as what Bell uses on the Zephyr, are notably better at keeping your face dry.

I like it

Impressively lightweight and with breezy ventilation, the Valegro is well worth your consideration. It’s actually now my favourite helmet, but it’s not an absolute home run. The limited protection at the back, the sweat that falls on my eyebrows, and somewhat delicate retention system stop this helmet from being something truly special. Still, if it fits, and low weight and plenty of vents are what you seek, you’ll likely be happy with your purchase.

The Kask Valegro is available in three sizes and a multitude of colours. It retails for US$250 / AU$299 / €189.

The Kask Valegro has a slim profile on your head.

The fixed splitters were comfortable for me and kept the straps clear of my ears.

Kask has “fixed” the sunglass compatibility issue by providing clearance for tucking the frames under. I had to run the cradle extremely low to take advantage of this feature, though.

Like many other lightweight road helmets, the Valegro offers minimal protection for the back of your head. Realistically, POC is one of the few brands to do it differently.

Another head shot, this time with KOO sunglasses.

A closer look at how the slim-framed KOO fit with its sibling Kask helmet. The thicker Oakley frames are no doubt a tighter fit, but they’re still comfortable.

Kask Valegro (right) vs Kask Mojito.

The Kask Valegro (right) has a much more rounded profile than the Kask Mojito.

A look inside reveals a bunch of channelling that links the many vents.

The Valegro offers a simple round shape.

The retention system is designed to be run low.

The cradle pads are adjustable horizontally.

Fixed strap splitters are becoming increasingly common.

The leather chin strip is supposedly better for sensitive skin than standard nylon webbing.

Ok.

A soft carry bag is included with the Valegro.

The post Kask Valegro helmet review: Feathery and airy appeared first on CyclingTips.

Gravel is one murky sub-segment of cycling. Ask five riders to define gravel riding and you’ll likely get at least that many divergent answers, and one brand’s gravel bike might be noticeably different to another one. And yet, however hard it is to define, there’s no denying that cyclists are flocking to unsealed roads, long-lost paths and previously boring mountain bike trails as quickly as tensions with other tarmac users rise.

Group road rides, commuting, bikepacking or fire road shredding – a gravel bike can do it all (or so the industry claims). Depending on what you’re trying to do, it may not be the most efficient or the most comfortable, but it’ll get you through it and to where you’re wanting to go. Some gravel bikes balance the subtly different usages impressively well, while others, such as the Giant’s new ToughRoad, lean to a specific segment. And the ToughRoad does it at a budget price.

A typical gravel build

Over the past few years, Giant have had their share of bikes that could be classified (or used) as a gravel bike, and yet, the new value-oriented aluminium ToughRoad SLR GX is one of the manufacturer’s first offerings that specifically mentions the “G word.” Bordering somewhat on the “monstercross” or even bikepacking end of the gravel segment, the ToughRoad GX is a difficult bike to catergorise, especially given that the ToughRoad SLR platform isn’t even devoted to the drop-bar gravel category. There’s another version, which drops the “GX” moniker, that features a flat handlebar and otherwise much of the same build.

For the drop-bar GX version, it’ll certainly do gravel. It can fit fat 700c rubber. And it is ready for pannier racks, too. In many ways, it’s a different beast to the performance-orientated gravel rigs we’ve seen pushed by comparably large bike companies, and is more akin to the smaller group of burly do-it-all gravel machines and off-road tourers from niche brands, such as those offered by Salsa or Otso.

No matter how murky the categorisation of a gravel bike is, there is some consistency in build kits between brands. You can typically expect disc brakes, knobby tyres between 35-42c in width, drop handlebars that are either flared or wider than normal, and a wide-range drivetrain, such as SRAM’s 1x-specific drivetrain that’s often visible on higher-end builds. The ToughRoad ticks all of these boxes.

Priced at AU$2,399 / US$1,735, the tested ToughRoad SLR GX 0 sits at the top of the ToughRoad range. Each ToughRoad SLR GX model features the same ALUXX SLR aluminium frameset (Giant’s top tier aluminium grade) and carbon composite fork with a straight aluminium steerer tube.

Every tube has been manipulated in some form.

The ToughRoad SLR frameset is what’s expected of modern aluminium from a leading manufacturer. Hydroforming was once a radical process, but Giant now regularly subjects nearly every aluminium frame tube to a mix of pressurized fluid and external moulds to form carbon-like frame shapes that were previously thought impossible in metal. The top tube on the ToughRoad SLR is slender and tapered from end to end, the seat tube has a D-shaped cross-section, and although the down tube was round when it was originally drawn, it’s now boxy and rectangular. All of the tubes are joined with consistent-looking TIG welds, and often by hand.

Showing the somewhat recreational utility intention of this frameset, there’s a kickstand mount at the rear dropout. Likewise, quick-release dropouts feature front and rear, a clear price consideration in a market where thru-axles are fast becoming the norm for anything with disc brakes. Giant may consider the standard threaded bottom bracket as another budget choice, too, but it’s frankly a welcomed feature to my eyes.

Pannier mounts are kept hidden behind these plates until required.

The front and rear pannier mounts are kept rather subtle, hidden behind Giant-branded covers that provide a cleaner look if you’re not interested in using racks or fenders. It’s a similar story on the fork, with the nearly flush mounts sitting quietly until required.

Giant first introduced D-shaped seatposts on the Defy range of endurance road bikes, and it’s now a common theme through much of the range, including on the ToughRoad SLR. According to Giant, the flat back is more flexible than a round post, and with so much of it sticking out of the sloping frame, the aim is a more comfortable ride. The post is held with an integrated wedge-type binder that sits within a hollowed-out nook in the top tube.

There’s so much tyre clearance on the ToughRoad SLR that you’d be excused for thinking it started life as a mountain bike that had been converted for gravel use. The gaps surrounding the 39.5mm-wide tyres (measured width) are more obvious than Madonna’s front teeth.

Plenty of clearance surrounds the 700x40c rubber.

No doubt, the ToughRoad is ready to be expanded for truly cruel off-road mischief. An enormous 700x50mm tyre will fit in the 60mm-wide space between the chainstays – likely with room for a fender – and although it was tight, I even managed to squeeze a 29×2.25” (53mm actual width) tyre in the back.

The fork widens the gap further to 75mm, leaving space for a fender around that same 29×2.25in tyre. The 425mm axle-to-crown length is a substantial 43mm taller than Enve’s Gravel Road Disc fork, too, although that’s still not quite long enough to be swapped out for a mountain bike suspension fork without affecting the frame geometry.

The ToughRoad hides its cables beneath the X-Defender down tube guard, which also serves as the mount for the included mini-fender shown here.

Only the front brake hose is routed internally, entering the carbon fork at the crown and then popping back out down near the dropout. Otherwise, the full-length gear housing and rear brake hose run along the bottom of the down tube, shielded by a plastic bolt-on down tube protector. Three bolts secure the full-length guard to the frame, while an optional front fender can be bolted on over the top of the protector.

As tested, the ToughRoad SLR GX 0 offers a solid build kit that mimics high-end bikes from the performance end of the gravel segment. The 1×11 SRAM Apex 1 HRD drivetrain combines a 40T chainring with an 11-42T cassette, the same ratios used on the recently tested Cannondale SuperX SE, and further proves the off-road intention of this bike. That SRAM groupset also includes hydraulic Apex disc brakes with 160mm front and rear rotors.

Inline with every other 2018 Giant bike pitched at the enthusiast rider or higher, the ToughRoad comes set up tubeless. This means Giant’s own 40c CrossCut Gravel 2 knobby tyres and PX-2 wheels are shipped without tubes, but rather two small bottles of relabeled Stan’s tyre sealant.

The rest of the build kit also carries Giant’s branding, including the alloy flared drop bar and square-profiled stem. A Giant saddle sits atop the composite D-Fuse post.

All told, my complete sample weighed 9.95kg (21.94lb), without pedals but with the front fender. Light the ToughRoad SLR GX 0 is most certainly not, but that’s to be expected given the price point.

What is this thing?

As dumb as it sounds, it took some time before I figured out exactly what the ToughRoad SLR GX was trying to be. Its build kit shouts new-age gravel, but the general frame design and geometry figures are clearly eager to be loaded with bags and ridden until food rations run low. Having ridden the ToughRoad on road rides, rocky trails, and gravel grinds, I can attest to it loving the dirt, and being somewhat of a drag on the tarmac. On the road, the ride is akin to pedaling a decent 29er mountain bike: upright and with the persistent rumbling of tyre drag.

All sizes of the ToughRoad share a 70mm bottom bracket drop, 42mm fork rake, and 450mm chainstay length. The wheelbase on a medium is 1048mm.

The weight obviously plays into the overall feel, but the frame geometry is also clearly better suited to off-road excursions. Stretched 450mm chainstays and a lazy 70.5-degree head tube make for a long wheelbase that great favour stability over agility. Yet the 42mm of fork rake yields a lot of trail, and a lot of “wheel flop.” It’s something you notice most in loose corners, with the front tyre feeling like it wants to wash out. Larger sizes offer a half-degree steeper head tube and are likely to be a little better off in this department, but not in a major way.

Such a high trail figure can be forgiven on a bike that’s carrying a heavy rear load, but even still, a little extra fork rake would be welcomed here. Not only would it liven up the handling, it may also be just enough to fix the slight toe overlap with the front wheel (which is pretty normal in smaller-sized gravel bikes). Changing the fork is a possible fix, but it’s something a buyer of a bike at this price shouldn’t need to consider.

Razor-sharp agility may not be the ToughRoad’s strong suit, but it does get better the faster you go – and the rougher the terrain gets, the more the ToughRoad and its tall front stance shines. I found myself motoring along a rocky firetrail at 40km/h, my skinny biceps flapping like I was riding Roubaix cobbles and the tyres kicking up all sorts of debris. Despite the chaos, the ToughRoad felt planted and eager for more, and was never unnerving.

Likewise, that “don’t give a damn” stability lends the ToughRoad to being a great commuter. Swap the tyres out for something smoother, load it up with lights, fenders, and panniers and it’ll serve you well.

Giant’s D-Fuse composite seatpost works as claimed. There is a visible amount of flex.

Aluminium frames have come a long way from the filling-rattling ride of years past. With its high-volume tubeless rubber, subtly tapered tube shapes, and visibly flexible D-Fuse seatpost, the ToughRoad’s ride is akin to sitting on a padded wooden stool. Your hands don’t get the same benefit, though, as the alloy steerer doing little to keep shock from coming through the handlebar.

The ToughRoad is capable of handling much more than the lightly loaded setup shown here.

Those long chainstays help to create a stable ride, but also provide clearance for panniers. The aluminium frame is certainly up to the task of being weighed down, but it’s lacking in accessory mounts with just two bidons and those front and rear panniers accounted for. Plenty of strap-on options exist, of course, but they’re obviously not as clean-looking.

The 40T chainring and 42T sprocket out back seem like plenty at first glance, and indeed, it provides a much easier gear than a compact crank with an 11-34T cassette. however, there were times I still wanted more. And certainly, if you’re looking to load this bike up like it’s intended and hit the hills, you likely will, too. Sizing down to a 38T chainring may be warranted, but you’ll be giving up top-end speed as a result.

Likewise, the narrow-wide chainring and clutched rear derailleur should provide ample chain security – at least in theory. But I found the limits of the design, throwing the chain on the same Roubaix-like jaunt I mentioned earlier. Granted, this was a very unusual occurrence and goes to show the type of terrain I was in where, other than the dropped chain, the ToughRoad was still laughing. Interestingly, Australian compliance laws require brands to provide geared bikes with a chain guide (some brands chuck a low-level front derailleur into the box to pass), and Giant did so with a reasonable quality resin chain guide. I initially chose to forgo it, but it’s clear that it’d be a good idea to keep it installed if you aim to test the ToughRoad’s limits.

SRAM’s Apex 1 HRD levers share an identical shape to the Rival and Force 1 levers.

SRAM’s road groupsets are masters of trickle-down, incorporating not just the same features on lower-end versions as the premium ones, but actually sharing most of the individual parts across the board. As such, the SRAM Apex 1 levers have the same hood shape and ergonomics of Rival 1 and Force 1, with the same comfortable and secure grip when riding off-road.

Even so, the Apex hydraulic discs offered the smooth and easy lever feel expected of a hydraulic system, but the levers still lacked the snappy return and feedback of higher-end models. I also experienced some squeal under heavy braking, a noise I haven’t heard from more expensive SRAM brakes as of late. Whether this is due to flex from the quick-release wheel retention, a failure to fully bed in the brakes, or simply contamination from the factory, I, unfortunately, don’t have an answer.

The rolling stock is a surprisingly good-quality setup given that the entire bike costs less than most wheelsets we typically review. The 19mm (internal width) tubeless alloy rims will take a beating, while the butted spokes and sealed bearing hubs should provide a reliable service life with minimal maintenance. However, such dependability at this price comes with an obvious weight disadvantage, and the wheels, along with the tyres, take a fair amount of effort to get up to speed or when tackling slow gravel climbs.

The Crosscut Gravel 2 tyres are well behaved on a mix of terrain, but a higher-end tyre will offer a noticeable improvement in other ways.

The tubeless tyres have proven durable, and while they’re well-rounded off-road, my preference would be to swap them for something a tad wider, a little more supple, and faster. This would further smooth the ride, save some grams, and ease your pedaling time on the road and smooth gravel.

The rest of Giant’s components do the job well. The flared bars provide greater control and stability off-road, but the reach is also a little long for my liking. And admittedly, I’m not a fan of the somewhat narrow saddles typically found on Giant bikes, but given how personal such things are, it’s hardly a criticism.

Finally, I think Giant’s entire “adventure” range, consisting of the Revolt (discontinued), the AnyRoad, and now the ToughRoad, all share a similarly unusual and polarising aesthetic. To be fair, the ToughRoad is certainly the nicest of the bunch, and the subdued charcoal paint and boxy shapes give it a rugged look, but the highly sloping top tube and compact frame is sure to scare many traditionalists away.

giant-bicycles.com

The ToughRoad sits at the exploration end of the gravel spectrum. It’s built tough, and has plenty of tyre clearance to see it tackle whatever you’re willing to point it at.

Crusing with the ToughRoad on gravel roads of the Hawkesbury region, northwest of Sydney.

Post mount brake mounts and quick release dropouts. The ToughRoad’s frame is built to a price, but there’s also a lot of practicality baked into the design.

It’s the same story up front.

The 700x40c tyre looks tiny given the massive clearances on tap.

The fork features reflective decals.

There’s plenty of fluid formed tubing to be seen.

The optional down tube-mounted front fender doesn’t provide as much coverage as a traditional one, but it still keeps a lot of muck away from you.

Without the front fender in place, the X-Defender beneath still hides the cables and protects the frame from rock strikes.

Full length housing is guided beneath the plastic down tube guard.

Those aren’t mounts for racks or fenders; they’re for a bolt-on kickstand.

A wedge-style seat binder holds the post in place, and needs a decent amount of grease to keep it from creaking.

SRAM’s Apex 1 drivetrain borrows many features from more expensive versions.

The Apex 1 alloy crank uses SRAM’s own four-bolt chainring mount. The smallest chainring SRAM offer for this crank is a 38T.

The clutch mechanism in SRAM’s rear derailleur helps with chain retention over rough terrain.

The Giant Connect XR Ergo-Control handlebar’s flared drops improve wrist clearance and provide greater control when off-road.

The compact drop shape is nice, but I prefer handlebars with a shorter reach to the hoods.

Giant supply their own saddles to match the rest of the cockpit.

A peak inside the hubs reveals sealed bearings.

The bike is shipped with the pictured chainguide and two bottles of tyre sealant. The chainguide isn’t entirely necessary, but might be a good idea if you anticipate tackling especially challenging terrain on the ToughRoad.

The post Giant ToughRoad SLR GX 0 2018 review: Budget-minded adventurer appeared first on CyclingTips.

It perhaps shouldn’t have caught anyone off-guard when Oakley introduced bicycle helmets last year at the Eurobike trade show. After all, the eyewear icon had already expanded into snow helmets in early 2016, and given its long-standing position in the cycling world, it seemed to be a natural progression.

Out of the three-model range, the ARO5 is Oakley’s aero road model, and it certainly looks the part with its sleek shape. However, its venting leaves much to be desired, and Oakley has yet to offer up any hard data to support its aero claims, so one has to wonder how much of a drag advantage it really has to offer over a more conventional lid.

Ticking the boxes

Oakley has an enviable reputation when it comes to pushing the limits of design, and the ARO5 is undoubtedly distinctive, even in a more subdued color than the high-vis “Retina Burn” version I tested here. As is typically the case with aero-minded road helmets, the pleasantly low-profile exterior fits closely to your head, and the neatly clipped and rounded tail is a far cry from the spiky designs from just a few years ago, which were seemingly inspired more by the hairstyles of Japanese anime characters than wind tunnel testing.

Aside from the somewhat ostentatious “O” logo on the side, the ARO5 is actually quite visually subdued. Oakley seems to be letting the shape of the ARO5 do most of the talking here, and I think it’s a good move. Overall, I’d say it’s a good-looking helmet.

The Oakley ARO5 fits pleasantly close to the head. It’s a comfortable lid, too, thanks in part to the cozy Boa-based retention system, the slimline webbing, and the well-placed fixed splitters.

Not surprisingly given the company’s background, Oakley has put a lot of emphasis on how the ARO5 fits with your eyewear. The Boa FS1-1 retention system uses a whisper-thin fabric cord instead of the hard plastic strips more often used on cycling helmets, and it doesn’t interfere at all with even the longest ear stems on the market; they simply fit right over the cord and grip the sides of your head as intended.

The outer two forward-facing vents are perfectly placed for stashing your sunglasses when you don’t feel like wearing them, too, and long cutouts in the interior leave plenty of room for the sunglass arms, instead of uncomfortably squashing them between the helmet liner and your noggin. Oakley absolutely nailed this aspect, no question.

Speaking of vents, Oakley has taken a dichotomous approach to keeping your head cool. Although the overall external shape of the ARO5 is very similar to the Giro Air Attack, the venting arrangement couldn’t be more different.

You can certainly feel air hitting the front half of your head at higher speeds when wearing the Oakley ARO5.

Giro opted for just six small slits in the Air Attack, but supplemented them with a series of very deep internal channels to help circulate air in between that helmet’s foam liner and your head. Oakley has instead basically cut open the entire front half of the ARO5, creating four (well, six if you factor in the plastic reinforcing ring that bisects the two main ports) gaping vents that leave most of the front of your head fully exposed to oncoming air.

Up top is a single intake port presumably meant to help funnel air toward the back of your head, but the rear half of the ARO5 is otherwise virtually solid, with just the smallest of perforations present at the tail.

On the safety front, Oakley has equipped the ARO5 (and all of its cycling helmets, actually) with a MIPS low-friction liner, which is claimed to reduce the incidence of closed-head injuries by lessening the severity of rotational forces during a crash. Coverage is fairly minimal out back with the high-cut rear profile, but on the plus side, the dearth of vents there leaves a lot of foam on hand to help dissipate impact energy.

The retention system’s textile cord is entirely unnoticeable against your head, and doesn’t interfere at all with sunglass arms, at least on my small-to-medium-sized head.

Oakley offers the ARO5 in three sizes — all of which use a rather ovoid shape and seem to run smaller than usual — and seven color options. Retail price is US$250 / AU$300 / £200 / €250. Actual weight for a medium CPSC-approved US sample is 322g.

Missing the mark

The primary motivation for anyone interested in an aero road helmet is, of course, aerodynamic performance. But in this key area, it’s not entirely clear how aero the ARO5 truly is. Although the ARO5 looks the part to the untrained eye, a statement from Oakley only offers vague reassurances of the ARO5’s speediness.

“[The ARO5 is] verified to be among the fastest road helmets on the market via 31 iterations of extensive CFD testing vs. top competitors, wind tunnel testing, and professional athlete input and testing (mainly by Team Dimension Data).”

Even if you take Oakley’s aero claims at face value, the ARO5 has some other major downsides.

With no meaningful venting on the entire rear of the helmet, the Oakley ARO5 is truly stifling unless you’re traveling at a healthy speed.

Ventilation is always a compromise when it comes to aero road helmets, and few expect them to perform as well in that respect as a conventional lid with more openings. The ones that are good at funneling air across your head at higher speeds oftentimes feel hot on slower climbs, and the ones that do a better job of keeping your head cool at both high and low speeds don’t always perform that well in the wind tunnel. But even in that context, the ARO5 falls seriously short of the competition.

High-speed cooling ability is pretty good, and you can feel the air hitting much of the front half of your head at higher speeds. But there’s very little internal channeling on the ARO5, and what few of them there are are too shallow and serpentine to be meaningful. Air can come in, but a lot of vent area feels wasted since there’s no clear outbound flow. On other helmets with more effective internal shaping — such as the Giro Vanquish, Bontrager Ballista, and POC Ventral — there’s a veritable torrent of air cascading across the entire top (and sometimes, sides) of your head for far more effective cooling at cruising speeds.

It’s a similar situation with bugs. Anything that gets sucked into the forward ports has no choice but to keep bouncing around in there until you completely pull the helmet off your head. It’s like a reincarnation of the old Roach Motel advertisements in bike helmet form: bugs check in, but they can’t check out.

The upper intake port seems like it should help keep the top and back of your head cool, but a lack of proper internal channeling means the incoming air doesn’t have anywhere to go.

At slower speeds, the ARO5 is truly stifling. With no significant vents at all on the rear half of the helmet, heat has nowhere to escape when you’re laboring uphill. It turns out the internal channeling that is so effective on other aero road helmets at higher speeds is still beneficial at lower ones. Some models, like the Bontrager Ballista and Giro Synthe, also add perforated vent covers that effectively behave as if they’re solid at faster speeds while still letting you literally blow off some steam at slower ones. Unfortunately, the ARO5 benefits from none of these features.

Making matters far worse is the ARO5’s old-school browpad design. There’s almost no air space between the pad and foam liner, and even if there was some, the back of the pad is completely covered by the solid plastic MIPS liner so there’s zero chance sweat can evaporate. I set out one day on a pleasant spring morning with low humidity and temperatures hovering around just 16°C (61°F), with a plan to head up a local 7% climb that was well shaded. But despite the sub-threshold effort, there was so much sweat pouring out of the ARO5’s browpad that I felt more like Floyd Landis in Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France, dumping bottle after bottle on my head.

Add in some legitimate heat and humidity, or just a harder effort, and donning the ARO5 at anything other than higher speeds (say, 35km/h or more) makes you feel like a marshmallow at the wrong end of the roasting stick. It’s a good thing Oakley nailed the sunglass storage aspect of the ARO5, because you’ll need to keep them there a lot. But the worst part of the ARO5’s stifling feel was the fact that nearly every time I wore it, I had that awful Buster Poindexter song from the 1980s going through my head on endless loop.

Not surprisingly, Oakley has absolutely nailed the sunglass storage aspect of the ARO5 helmet. It’s easy to stash eyewear up there (provided they have straight earstems), and they hold on tight, too.

The ARO5 is otherwise quite comfortable. There’s a minimal amount of padding on the inside, but the smooth MIPS plastic liner seems to help make up for that. The thin webbing also sits nicely on the side of your face, and the fixed splitters leave plenty of room around your ears. Three height settings on the retention system make it easy to find the sweet spot, too.

You’d best exercise some care when the ARO5 isn’t on your head, however. The lower edge of the EPS foam liner is totally exposed, and there’s also a lot of uncovered foam up top as well. The two bare foam edges at the top of the two main forward-facing vents are particularly worrisome, and even after a few weeks of regular testing, my ARO5 sample is showing more scars than I’d prefer.

A decent first effort, but lots of room for improvement

Overall, Oakley has made a fair first stab at the aero road helmet segment, but given the premium pricing, the performance that it delivers on the road doesn’t make the ARO5 a particularly compelling option. Several other aero road helmets (like the Bontrager Ballista, POC Ventral, Specialized Evade II, and Giro Vanquish) manage to offer proven aerodynamic advantages while still doing a much better job of delivering reasonably balanced ventilation performance, too.

I’ll freely admit to being a fan of Oakley’s sunglasses; rarely has the company put out something that I didn’t feel was functionally superb (or often superior to the competitors), even if the styling wasn’t always to my liking. There will undoubtedly be plenty of Oakley devotees who will be willing to overlook the ARO5’s flaws to stay true to the brand, and the company’s first stab at an aero road helmet may suit you just fine if you’re only ever going to be moving quickly while wearing it.

But overall, even the most diehard of supporters won’t be able to deny that there are better options out there.

Visit oakley.com for more information.

The Oakley ARO5 reminds me of the Giro Air Attack with its trim profile and rounded shape. But nevertheless, it’s impossible to mistake one for the other, especially given the giant “O” logo on the side.

Oakley’s approach to ventilation on the ARO5 seems to comprise mostly of carving a bunch of gaping vents into the front.

Somehow, Oakley has managed to make a fluorescent yellow road helmet look really cool.

The bow-shaped panel on the rear of the Oakley ARO5 is also shared with the more highly ventilated ARO3 model.

The retention system is adjustable to three heights.

Interior padding is minimal on the Oakley ARO5, but the smooth MIPS plastic liner makes up for it to some extent.

The browpad design is disappointingly rudimentary, with seemingly no thought given to sweat management. The pad saturates quickly, and with no air space to help the absorbed perspiration evaporate, it doesn’t take long for it to start pouring down your face, even when it’s only moderately warm outside.

These older-style MIPS attachments can painfully snag and tear out hair if you’re not careful.

There’s a lot of exposed foam on the ARO5, including the entire lower edge and a fair bit of the top, too.

These sharper edges are especially concerning. The Oakley ARO5 isn’t cheap, and unless you’re especially careful about how you handle it, it won’t look new for long.

The post Oakley ARO5 helmet review: Feelin’ hot, hot, hot appeared first on CyclingTips.

The ZX-1 is Vitus’s new flagship race bike built around an aero road disc chassis. Like the brand’s other models, it is only available through online retail giants Wiggle and Chain Reaction Cycles, and at this stage, there is a choice of three distinct builds and pricepoints.

The ZX-1 CR1 sits in the middle of this collection with a build that features Shimano’s Ultegra Di2 groupset and Prime’s RP-50 carbon road disc wheelset. It’s clearly a race-oriented offering and in this review, Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom takes a closer look at what the new bike has to offer riders.

Vitus, for those that are unfamiliar with the brand, has a rich history in professional cycling. The brand was launched in the late ‘70s to sell bonded alloy frames, which viewed as something of a technological breakthrough at the time. Vitus used high-strength epoxy to bond alloy tubes to cast alloy lugs and fittings, and while the construction strategy was really no different from a lugged steel frame, the materials offered significant weight savings and a fresh aesthetic for road bikes.

Vitus started working with carbon fibre in the early ‘80s, replacing the alloy tubes that made up the front triangle of its frames with composite versions. With the promise of even greater weight savings, the company went on to create carbon fibre tubes for the entire frame, culminating with the Carbone 9, which was unveiled in 1987, and weighed just over 1,300g.

Vitus’s bonded frames were embraced by professional racers, most notably Sean Kelly, who would ride the company’s frames to a multitude of victories. Those frames developed an unfortunate reputation for too much flex, and the bonded joints were also prone to failing. Vitus stumbled through the ‘90s until it faded from sight by the end of the decade, but before that happened, the company managed to develop and sell a monocoque carbon frame.

The original ZX-1 was unveiled in 1992 and was available until 1996. Photo courtesy Vive le Vélo!

The ZX-1 was not the first widely available monocoque carbon fibre frame on the market — that honour goes to Kestrel’s 4000 — but it still pre-dates a lot of brands. Photo courtesy Vive le Vélo!

No foils or Kamm tails here, just swooping lines. Photo courtesy Vive le Vélo!

Our understanding of bicycle aerodynamics has come a long way since the early ’90s, but it was built upon the ideas first tested by bikes like the ZX-1. Photo courtesy Vive le Vélo!

Launched in 1991, the ZX-1 was amongst the first wave of carbon monocoque frames on the market. The frame was designed for road riders and time-triallists, and had some aerodynamic features, such as a fairing for the rear wheel. According to collectors, less than 1,000 ZX-1 frames were ever made, and only a few hundred have survived unscathed to this day.

Needless to say, carbon fibre construction and aero road frame design have come a long way since the ZX-1. And while Vitus disappeared from the sport for over a decade, it was resurrected in 2012 when Chain Reaction Cycles acquired the rights to the name. That was followed by a return to the professional peloton in 2014 under Sean Kelly’s An Post team, so when the born-again brand started work on a new aero road bike, ZX-1 seemed like the perfect name for the project.

Breathing new life into the ZX-1

Creating the new ZX-1 was a major undertaking and Vitus devoted three years to the process. It was designed wholly in-house with Vitus undertaking CFD analysis to refine the aerodynamic profile of the frameset. And while a rim-brake version was part of the design process, Vitus decided to commit to disc brakes when it was time to move the ZX-1 into production.

At face value, the ZX-1 is not an obviously aerodynamic frame like the Scott Foil, Trek Madone, Canyon Aeroad, Merida Reacto, or Giant Propel. Rather, it is a road aero frame in the same vein as Scott’s original Foil and Chapter2’s Tere with subtle Kamm tail profiles, a semi-integrated fork crown, and a minimum amount of component integration.

For those riders looking to minimise their aerodynamic drag, it might be tempting to dismiss Vitus for failing to keep pace with the market, but according to the company, the conservative frame design provides a better blend of stiffness and compliance for the rider. At the same time, Vitus wanted to make sure that the bike wouldn’t be affected by crosswinds, so the designers were prepared to give up some marginal gains in order to provide a bike that was well mannered in all conditions.

With that said, I have no data on the real-world performance of the ZX-1, or how it compares with other brands, so buyers can only guess at the aerodynamic performance of the bike. What is clear, though, is that the modest aerodynamic profile of the ZX-1 does not include any integration of components like the stem or seatpost clamp. As a result, there are no special considerations (or complications) when it comes to adjusting the stem or saddle height.

The specifications for the ZX-1 reflect those for the Vitesse EVO, which was once the flagship of Vitus’s road collection. Thus, the frame has a BB386 bottom bracket shell, tapered head tube, internal cable routing, and interchangeable fittings for mechanical and electronic groupsets. The ZX-1 shares the same flat mounts for the brakes and 12mm-diameter thru-axles as the Vitesse EVO Disc, however the new bike can accommodate 140mm and 160mm rotors, front and rear.

The ZX-1 is available in six frame sizes, as detailed in the table below:

Overall, the geometry for the ZX-1 is quite similar to the Vitesse EVO Disc, albeit with less stack for the larger frame sizes, a little more reach, and shorter chainstays. Bottom bracket drop ranges 72-67mm, decreasing as the size of the frame increases, but a 43mm fork rake and 410mm-long chainstays are used throughout the range.

That shared fork rake is a little disappointing, since the the smallest frame size really deserves a fork with more rake to provide a more immediate steering response in line with the other frame sizes. This is a common oversight for mass-manufactured frames, which use slacker head tube angles to reduce the amount of toe overlap for small frame sizes.

There are three ZX-1 models in Vitus’s 2018 catalogue, and all feature the same frameset, Shimano groupsets, and mid-to-high-profile wheelsets. The entry-level build features Shimano’s current 105 11-speed mechanical groupset and Mavic Cosmic Elite wheels; the Ultegra build reviewed here has the new R8070 Di2 groupset along with Prime RP-50 carbon clinchers; and the flagship Team build combines Shimano’s mechanical Dura-Ace R9100 groupset with DT Swiss ARC 1100 DiCut carbon clinchers.

Looking more closely at the Ultegra build, the new Di2 groupset includes a semi-compact 52/36T crankset, 11-28T cassette, and a three-port junction box mounted under the stem. The alloy cockpit comprises Ritchey’s WCS 4-Axis stem and Streem II handlebars; for seating, a Fizik Antares saddle is mounted on a proprietary carbon seatpost; and the wheels are fitted with Schwalbe’s Pro One tyres (25c), which are tubeless-ready but fitted with inner tubes from the factory. A stealthy black-on-black finish completes the bike, which looks like a sophisticated and race-ready package.

Total weight for the 54cm bike sent for review was 8.09kg/17.83lb without pedals or bottle cages, which is probably more than what most buyers would hope for a mid-level bike, but it is consistent with other road disc bikes around the same price, such as Giant’s Propel Advanced Pro Disc.

All of Vitus’s bikes are available for online purchase at Wiggle and Chain Reaction Cycles with worldwide delivery. The ZX-1 CR1 Aero Disc sells for AU$5,685/US$4,752/£3,200, however that price does not include delivery, and may not include local tax/duty. For buyers in Australia, delivery will cost AU$195 while tax/duty will add another ~15% to the final cost of the bike, making for a total of at least AU$6,700.

When that price is compared to bikes with similar builds, such as Giant’s Propel Advanced Pro Disc (AU$6,599), Scott’s Foil 10 Disc (AU$6,300), and Merida’s Reacto Disc 8000-E (AU$6,999), then the ZX-1 is no more affordable than its big-brand competition, at least for Australian buyers. By contrast, the ZX-1 is considerably cheaper than the Propel Advanced Pro Disc and the Foil 10 Disc in the UK, plus buyers get free delivery and a 30-day test ride as well.

As with any bike that is boxed for delivery, some assembly of the ZX-1 will be required before it can be ridden. This will normally involve fitting the handlebars to the stem, seatpost to the frame, and the pedals to the cranks. After-sales service from Wiggle and Chain Reaction Cycles is largely limited to returns and refunds, and while some countries have service points, this is not a widespread feature, so buyers will generally need to find a mechanic and pay for any tune-ups and adjustments required once the bike has been delivered.

More information on the ZX-1 can be found on the Vitus web site, while Wiggle and Chain Reaction Cycles can provide information on the options for purchase and delivery.

A bike for undulating terrain and aggressive riding

Carbon fibre construction, Kamm tail tubing, electronic shifting, 50mm carbon rims, disc brakes, and a stealthy finish: if there was ever a recipe for an aggressive race bike, then Vitus has assembled all of the right ingredients with the ZX-1 CR1. And, as it turns out, the final mix makes for a pretty potent race bike that excels in undulating terrain.

The ZX-1 was an easy bike to get to know, and within a couple of rides, I was at home on it. There was plenty of stiffness where it was needed, and overall, it was a stout and robust bike. Every time I put in an effort, out of the saddle or seated, the bike responded nicely, and with a pleasing amount of feedback from the road, I found it a thrill to ride.

The steering of the bike was quite quick, perfect for a race-oriented bike and for attacking sharp turns. I didn’t have any problems with the handling of the bike, either, which was stable at high speeds, yet willing to turn at low speeds. There was some toe overlap, but that was easy to forgive since it was only noticeable during track stands while waiting for traffic lights to change.

The ride quality of the ZX-1 was pretty forgiving — for a race bike. Slamming into a crack or hole at high speeds always produced some noticeable shock, but I wouldn’t describe the bike as harsh. When I tackled a few unpaved tracks and rough chipseal on the ZX-1, the bike was able to soak up a lot of buzz and vibration, but there was a clear threshold where the ZX-1 could be overwhelmed.

To put the ride quality of the ZX-1 into perspective, it falls somewhere in between each generation of Scott’s Foil. The first-generation Foil was exceptionally stiff and exciting to ride, while the second-generation Foil was much more compliant and a better choice for rough roads. Thus, as a bike that is noticeably stiff (and exhilarating to ride) yet still able to tame rough stretches of road, I expect a lot of racers (or aggressive riders) will appreciate (and perhaps savour) what the ZX-1 has to offer.

In this regard, it’s worth noting that I used a tyre pressure of 60psi for most of the review period, which worked well for the 25c Schwalbe Pro One tyres supplied with the bike. I spent a couple of rides using the tyres with inner tubes (as supplied) before swapping them out for tubeless valves (also supplied with the bike) and sealant. It was worth the effort because the tyres went from dull to lively, though the overall impact on the bike was really a matter of nuance.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve been on a number of road disc bikes, and each instance, they never felt quite as agile or responsive as a rim-brake-equipped bike. This was especially noticeable when comparing the rim- and disc-brake versions of Vitus’s Vitesse EVO, where at least some of the difference could be attributed to markedly heavier wheels.

In the case of the ZX-1, this effect wasn’t nearly as noticeable, but it still wasn’t as agile and zippy as a lighter bike with rim brakes. The difference was yet another nuance, to be sure, but it did blunt the performance of the bike, and for some racers, at least, it might feel like an unnecessary handicap.

On the flip side, the quality of braking was superb, near effortless, and confidence-inspiring. The ergonomics of Shimano’s new R8070 Di2 hydraulic levers are much improved and a welcome replacement for the R785 lever. With no obvious bulges in the width or shape of the hoods, they are virtually indistinguishable from a Di2 rim-brake lever. It may have taken a few years, but Shimano has finally managed to seamlessly integrate disc brakes into its Ultegra Di2 groupset.

Heading into the hills, the ZX-1 was a capable performer, but it wasn’t a potent climbing rig. Instead, it was at its best in undulating terrain where the stout chassis was a clear asset when driving the bike over small rises. The ZX-1 always seemed to gather speed quickly on descents; likewise, the bike was reasonably easy to keep going at high speeds on flat roads. On paper, this is where 50mm rims and Kamm tails promise to add an edge to a bike, and if that was the case, then I’m glad I had both at my disposal.

At the same time, the ZX-1 had another edge to offer, which was far more personal: the bike was a very good fit (although I had to remove the headset cover to get the handlebars low enough for my needs) and my weight distribution was nearly perfect. As a result, I was able to achieve an ease with the ZX-1 that I don’t often find, which may have helped my speed; if not, then it certainly elevated my experience and added to my enjoyment of the bike.

Summary and final thoughts

Vitus has done a fantastic job of resurrecting and updating the ZX-1 for the new millennium. The bike looks like an aggressive race bike, and that is exactly how it performs. The ZX-1 stiff and robust with a firm, but forgiving, ride quality that should satisfy any racer. The steering and handling is spot-on, and while the disc-brake hardware adds some weight to the bike, it won’t be much of a handicap on flat courses and undulating terrain where the bike is at its best.

Shoppers within the UK might be particularly tempted with what the ZX-1 has to offer, given the attractive price, easy availability, and even the option for a 30-day test-ride. Outside of the UK, though, delivery and local taxes/duties add significantly to the price of the bike, and buyers must contend with the daunting proposition of spending thousands on a bike that they can’t ride beforehand (or return with ease). That isn’t to say that the bike is overpriced, but it no longer trumps similarly equipped bikes from other brands.

As a result, I expect a lot of shoppers will find it easy to overlook Vitus and the ZX-1 CR1. Nevertheless, it remains a great package that might end up looking quite exotic in a bunch dominated by more recognisable brands.

 

 

Shimano’s new R8070 hydraulic brake lever/Di2 shifter is superb.

 

The ZX-1 is race legal with disc brakes, no less.

Press-fit detractors won’t be happy with the BB386 shell on the Vitus ZX-1, but at least the format places the cartridge bearings far out on the Shimano Hollowtech II spindle.

 

The external Di2 junction box and hydraulic hose connectors are untidy but it’s difficult to see them when sitting on the bike.

Prime is another in-house brand for Wiggle and Chain Reaction Cycles so it’s not surprising to see these wheels on the Vitus ZX-1 CR1.

The new Ultegra disc-brake groupset features RT800 rotors with Freeza cooling blades to help dissipate heat.

 

The hydraulic brake hose adds a little to the width of the R8070 Di2 lever but it’s difficult to notice when holding on to the levers.

 

 

 

 

 

The 25c Schwalbe Pro One tyres supplied with the bike are an easy fit in the fork…

… and in the frame. According to Vitus, the ZX-1 will accommodate 28c tyres, but nothing larger.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Vitus ZX-1 CR1 Aero Disc bike review: A classic name reborn appeared first on CyclingTips.

Knit materials are supposed to be the next big thing in cycling footwear. They’re highly tunable, so designers can offer zonal stretch and stiffness exactly where desired, they’re potentially much more breathable than synthetic leathers, and the manufacturing process produces less waste than traditional methods. They can even be made in a wider range of wild designs and colors, too.

Thus far, only two companies have jumped aboard the knit bandwagon for cycling footwear: Giro with the Empire E70 Knit, and Fizik with the Infinito R1 Knit. Giro and Fizik take very different approaches to the concept, though, with very different outcomes as a result. Do the new knit shoes offer any real-world advantages to their traditionally made counterparts? Yes and no.

The thinking behind knit

Knit uppers have been the rage in general-purpose athletic footwear for the past several years, but it’s only been very recently that the technology has made its way into cycling shoes. Given the claimed benefits, though, it’s a wonder it hasn’t happened sooner.

Conventional cycling shoe uppers are traditionally made from some type of synthetic leather, whether it’s cut in a single piece from a larger roll of material, or stitched and/or bonded together from multiple smaller pieces. Oftentimes, the interior of the shoe is line with an additional layer of mesh for added comfort. From there, the patterns are wrapped around a last and placed in a heated mold where the materials take on a foot-like shape. After the upper cools, it’s bonded to the outsole.

The Fizik Infinito R1 Knit is only sold with an all-black finish, and is unquestionably the more understated of the two shoes here. Giro thankfully also offers the Empire E70 Knit in more subtle designs, too.

Knit uppers, on the other hand, are more akin to fancy socks, with individual yarns woven together to form the final pattern. That flat shape requires a trip through a heated mold like with other materials, but knitting the upper is still a more direct method of manufacturing and produces a lot less waste than cutting patterns out of big rolls. Designers can also engineer specific areas of stiffness and flexibility into knit uppers by selectively altering the knit pattern and yarns as desired; areas that need to be more structured can be made with a denser weave, for example, while other areas can be left more open for added comfort and flexibility.

Of course, there’s also the potential for some wild aesthetics in knit uppers by changing the yarn colors and weave patterns (as well as some killer combinations if you choose your socks carefully).

If you’re going to roll with some color, you may as well go all-in. I was admittedly pretty unsure of how these @girocycling Empire E70 Knit shoes looked when they first showed up, but after swapping the black laces for some pink ones, then adding some killer socks from @hbstache, the combo seems just right. #sockdoping

A post shared by James Huang (@angryasian) on Feb 15, 2018 at 12:39pm PST

Not surprisingly, knit materials are also inherently more breathable than traditional synthetics. Whereas cycling footwear companies will often add a number of laser or mechanical perforations (or separate mesh panels) into synthetic leathers to improve airflow and breathability, knit materials are riddled with holes by nature.

Different strokes

Giro and Fizik have both brought knit technology to cycling footwear recently, and both of their new knit shoes are adaptations of existing models — the Empire E70 Knit being a variation of Giro’s classic Empire, and the Infinito R1 Knit bearing a close resemblance to Fizik’s standard Infinito R1. That said, the way each company is using knit technology is quite different.

Giro’s “Xnetic Knit” uppers are made of a blend of nylon and polyester fibers, with the nylon fibers concentrated in areas that need a bit of extra rigidity. The entire upper edge of the shoe uses a denser weave pattern for durability, while other areas, such as on the sides, use a more open knit to enhance airflow. Additional layers of thicker polyurethane film are thermally welded into select areas to give the upper some extra structure, and to prevent unwanted stretching. Out back is a conventional molded plastic heel cup to help stabilize your foot while pedaling. The interior of the heel area is lined with a layer of nylon mesh (along with a bit of padding), but everything from the ankle forward is left in its raw state.

Giro debuts Xnetic Knit uppers on new Empire and Republic shoes

Rather than figure out a way to attach a bunch of complex closure systems, Giro equips the Empire E70 Knit with a simple lace-up design, complete with metal eyelets and a handy elastic strap on the well-padded conventional synthetic leather tongue to keep the laces from flopping about during a ride. To help keep your feet from getting instantly soaked with rain and road spray, the uppers are treated with a durable water-repellent (DWR) coating.

From there, the entire upper is bonded to the same Easton EC70 carbon outsole as what Giro uses on the midrange Trans Boa and Sentrie Techlace models.

Fizik takes more of a hybrid approach for the Infinito R1 Knit. The uppers are fully knit, and like the Empire E70 Knit, Fizik alters the weave density and pattern to selectively provide zones of extra stretch. Also like on the Giros, the Infinito R1 Knit is built with a conventional internal heel cup to provide additional stability.

One of the advantages of knit technology is that the pattern can be altered to provide different performance characteristics. Here, the upper area is denser to provide more support for the laces, while the weave is far more open elsewhere for better breathability. Giro also uses a mix of nylon and polyester fibers to make certain areas stiffer or more flexible.

However, whereas Giro uses additional reinforcing layers rather sparingly on the Empire E70 Knit, Fizik bolsters nearly the entire top half of the Infinito R1 knit, as well as the edge of the toe box and lower half of the heel area. The unaltered knit material is still visible from the outside around the toe box and upper heel area (where the additional give is presumably needed most), but rather than leave any of the knit raw against your socks, Fizik lines the entire inside of the Infinito R1 Knit with mesh.

The Infinito R1 Knit’s upper design is certainly more complex than that of the Empire E70 Knit, but the shoe is also more complex overall. Whereas the Empire E70 Knit is a straightforward lace-up shoe, each Infinito R1 Knit uses two separate Boa IP1-B dial closures. There’s also a separate “Dynamic Arch Support” panel at the arch that is meant to provide more specific tunability in that area without overly affecting the tightness around the toe box; the rearmost Boa dial basically just cinches the shoe around the ankle. According to Fizik, this two-zone system provides a wider adjustment range and more independent tightening around the ankle and forefoot.

Fizik’s use of knit technology is more conservative than Giro’s, with a lot more polyurethane reinforcement added. up top, and only the edges of the knit left mostly unaltered. That said, they look absolutely fantastic.

Down below, and just like Giro, Fizik takes the completed hybrid knit upper and bonds it to a shared outsole. In this case, it’s the same vented carbon fiber plate used on the standard Infinito R1.

The two companies’ differing takes on knit cycling shoes yield obvious differences visually, but also in terms of weight and cost. Actual weight for a pair of Empire E70 Knit shoes (size 43.5) is 517g — about 35g heavier per shoe than the Empire ACC. A pair of similarly fitting size 42 (they run quite big) Infinito R1 Knit shoes comes in at a heftier 562g, for a weight penalty of about 50g relative to the standard Infinito R1.

Retail prices are much more divergent, with the Empire E70 Knit shoes fetching US$200 / AU$300 / £200 / €229 at full retail, while the Infinito R1 Knit is roughly double the cost at a whopping US$450 / AU$500 / £350 / €380 per pair.

On the road

It might seem odd to compare two pairs of cycling shoes that are so different in design, construction, and price. But in fairness, shoes are such personal items that it’s arguably illogical to declare winners and losers for the category in general. But regardless, it’s still interesting to look in more detail at how knit technology has altered the shoes on which each of these are based, as well as whether knit cycling shoes make any sense for you.

The Giro Empire E70 Knit looks a lot like other Empire models in terms of overall shape and design, but in reality, the knit upper yields a surprisingly significant change in both fit and feel. Giro uses the same last for both the standard and knit versions of the Empire, but since the knit material doesn’t “spring back” as much as standard synthetics after the last is removed post-molding, the sides of the toe box end up notably more vertical. The Empire E70 Knit is still relatively narrow as compared to some other cycling footwear brands, but given the slightly boxier shape and the subtle stretch from the neat woven fabric, the knit version feels downright roomy when worn back-to-back with the standard Empire.

Giro uses the same last on the Empire E70 Knit as on other Empires, but since the knit material doesn’t “spring back” as much as the synthetic leathers used on the rest of the range, the toe box ends up with straighter sides and more effective volume.

All of this is great news for riders who want to like the standard Empires, but can’t get their feet to fit into that unusually confining shape (myself included). Riders with any sort of lumps or bunions (myself included) will also find that the Xnetic Knit is more accommodating of slight anatomical anomalies without the need to do any spot-stretching.

Giro’s strategically placed reinforcements for the Xnetic Knit uppers seem to work. Despite the added stretchiness and give in certain key areas, the Empire E70 Knit doesn’t feel any less secure than standard Empires. That said, the stock footbeds provide only marginal arch support (as with all Giro road shoes, to be honest), and at least for me, the medium-width heel cup could also be a bit more snug. That slight bit of heel movement was hardly disagreeable while riding, though, and once I added some aftermarket Solestar insoles, I found the Empire E70 Knit to provide more than enough support for everyday riding — and definitely far more comfort than any other Empire I’ve used in the past.

Giro also uses laminated polyurethane layers to add a bit of branding.

Breathability is one area where the Xnetic Knit upper is absolutely superb. Even in high heat and humidity, you never get the sense that your feet are struggling to stay cool while wearing the Empire E70 Knit. The sole only has the tiniest little opening under the toes, but the uppers are so well vented on their own that you’d be hard pressed to keep your feet from freezing even in moderately cold conditions.

As for that DWR coating, it’s about as effective as you’d expect in this application – which is to say not very well. These knit uppers are about as watertight as cheesecloth, after all, and coating or no coating, the holes are pretty big; your little piggies will be swimming in a steady downpour just as they would in any other shoe. But on the upside, the knit uppers’ more porous nature let them drain and dry out faster than standard synthetic uppers.

It’s quite a different story with the Infinito R1 Knit. Fizik’s less radical use of knit material here makes for a more structured hold than what you get on the Empire E70 Knit, but it’s also less able to shape to your feet since the stretchy areas are so much more limited in terms of coverage. Fizik’s knit feels stiffer and less conforming than what Giro uses, too, and the difference in overall fit and feel between the Infinito R1 Knit and the standard Infinity R1 isn’t nearly as drastic as one might expect.

That fully lined interior may give the Fizik Infinito R1 Knit a more posh feel inside than if the knit were left raw (although that’s debatable), but the additional layer also reduce the material’s ability to conform to your foot shape. It also negatively affects breathability.

Unfortunately, that restrained approach costs the Infinito R1 Knit in other areas. All of that additional reinforcement makes the Infinito R1 Knit a lot less breathable than the Empire E70 Knit, and seemingly even less so than the standard Infinito R1 as well. The open weave pattern on the edges of the Infinito R1 Knit looks like it’d be cool from the outside, but the interior lining presents another barrier to airflow, and the laminated areas elsewhere can feel thick and stifling at times.

Given that the Infinito R1 Knit is based on the standard Infinito R1, it’s no surprise that they fit very similarly. Carrying over are the same aggressively tapered toe box shape, narrow overall width, and highly curved outsole. Got flat and/or wide feet? Don’t even bother with these. Truth be told, the Fiziks don’t actually measure any narrower than the Giros, but since the uppers are a bit stiffer on the Infinito R1 Knit than the Empire E70 Knit, they effectively feel a touch more confining.

Fizik makes a big deal of the “Dynamic Arch Support” panel used on the Infinito R1 Knit. It’s supposed to provide a bit of independent adjustment in this critical area, but given that it’s stitched into the rest of the upper all around the edge of the panel, any difference over a more conventional design isn’t really noticeable.

Heel hold has thankfully improved over the R1 from a couple of years ago, with a more secure hold that’s far less prone to slipping than before. But does that fancy Dynamic Arch Support panel work as advertised? Well, given that it’s fully stitched around its edges and doesn’t truly move independently of the rest of the upper, I’d say no. Fizik’s replaceable heel tread is still as hard as ever, too; on hardwood or stone flooring, you may as well be wearing tap shoes on an ice skating rink with a layer of ball bearings in between.

That all said, the Infinito R1 Knit is arguably the better-looking of the two knit shoes here, at least if you prefer the classic aesthetics of conventional high-performance road shoes. The Empire E70 Knit shoes never let you (or anyone else) forget that you’re wearing something different — and even the wilder color options can look fantastic if you’re careful with sock choice — but the Infinito R1 Knit is more subtle in how it goes about its business.

To knit or not to knit

Between the Empire E70 Knit and Infinito R1 Knit, I’d argue that Giro has made the more convincing case for knit uppers. The Empire E70 Knit is more notably different from the standard Empire models in terms of fit and feel, and makes it clear how the woven construction has something more to offer as compared to conventional synthetics. And while they’re a fair bit heavier than other Empire models, they’re also less expensive, with no appreciable downsides.

The Infinito R1 Knit is undoubtedly a beautiful looking shoe, but it’s harder to justify the upcharge relative to the standard Infinito R1. The knit version isn’t significantly more comfortable, it’s heavier (although, again, so is the Empire E70 Knit relative to the standard Empires), and the heavyhanded construction methods Fizik uses here makes for a shoe that feels hotter, not cooler.

Both the Fizik Infinito R1 Knit and Giro Empire E70 Knit use cutting-edge fabric technologies, but one definitely makes a stronger case for knit uppers than the other.

Knit technology is only just starting to make its way into the cycling footwear world, but if the general athletic shoe market is any indication, it’s bound to make further inroads in the years ahead given the enormous potential of the material. Potential is the key word here, though. It’s one thing to be different in order to make a positive change, but another thing entirely if you’re different just for the sake of being different.

With the Giro Empire E70 Knit, it’s easy to see how knit technology can make cycling shoes better; but unless you’re just drawn to the unique aesthetics of the Infinito R1 Knit, you’re likely better off with the standard Fizik Infinito R1 shoes instead.

www.giro.com
www.fizik.com

Giro has gone all-in with knit technology with the Empire E70 Knit, with only minimal additional laminated polyurethane reinforcements to bolster the nylon-and-polyester uppers.

Rather than complicate the shoe with elaborate closure systems, Giro builds the Empire E70 Knit as a classic lace-up model.

The tool and heel are reinforced to guard against wear.

Polyurethane strips are added inside the shoe to keep certain areas from stretching.

Giro doesn’t include pink laces in this colorway stock (they’re normally black), but these seem more appropriate, no?

A handy elastic lace keeper is built into the padded tongue.

The Giro Empire E70 Knit shoes are supremely breathable.

A single stitch line is visible along the rear edge of the shoe.

Giro mounts the knit upper to its workhorse Easton EC70 carbon plate.

There’s a moderate amount of curvature built into the Giro Empire E70 Knit shoes, but not much arch support inside.

The heel tread is easily replaceable, and the rubber material is pleasantly grippy.

Whereas Giro has introduced knit technology at the midrange, Fizik has incorporated the concept into the Infinito R1 Knit at the very top of the collection.

Fizik uses the same dual-Boa closure system as is found on the standard Infinito R1. The two-way micro-adjustment and pull-to-release functionality make these easier to get on and off, and adjust on the fly, than the lace-up Giros.

Fizik lines the entire interior of the Infinito R1 Knit shoes, which arguably provides a more luxurious feel relative the Giros, and also lends an opportunity to add a bit of color.

There’s an awful lot of detail work on the Fizik Infinito R1 Knit shoes, and it’s easy to see why they’re so much more expensive than the Giro Empire E70 Knit shoes.

The boomerang-shaped cut line supposedly allows the Fizik Infinito R1 Knit shoes to be more accommodating of different forefoot sizes and shapes than usual. That may be, but the toe box is still very aggressively tapered, which just isn’t going to work for everyone.

Riders with flat feet will want to tread carefully with the Fizik Infinito R1 Knit shoes. The carbon outsole is highly curved, and not particularly accommodating if you have anything less than a medium arch shape.

The unidirectional carbon fiber plate on the Fizik Infinito R1 Knit is certainly stout, and also quite thin. Those vents can’t make up for the so-so breathabilty up top, though.

Seriously, Fizik, you can do better here. The heel tread is replaceable – as should be the case with every high-end road cycling shoe – but it’s so hard that you’re unlikely to need to source replacements any time soon. That’s a good thing, but the fact that these are wickedly slippery on hard surfaces most definitely is not.

Fizik still places its cleat holes curiously far forward.

The post Knit Knockout: Giro Empire E70 Knit vs. Fizik Infinito R1 Knit road shoe review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Rere is a Maori word that means “to flow”, and for Michael Pryde, it was the perfect name for his new aero road chassis. It is the second frameset for his growing brand, Chapter2, which was founded on a devotion for creating fast bikes for racers and performance-oriented riders. Pryde set out to minimise the aerodynamic drag of every exposed surface of the Rere, and even created a sleek carbon cockpit that complements the performance of the new frameset.

In this review, Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom throws a leg over the Rere to find out if the new chassis is really as fast as it looks (and it is).

It has been twelve months since Chapter2 first opened its doors for business. Chapter2 is the brainchild of Michael Pryde, who, after spending several years creating bikes for NeilPryde, left his father’s company in 2015 to start the next chapter (pun intended) in his career.

We had a look at the story behind Chapter2 when we reviewed its first offering, the Tere frameset, last year. Compared to NeilPryde, it’s a smaller and more personal endeavour for Michael, so it’s not surprising to see that his branding is infused with (and informed by) his Maori heritage. He draws on the language to name his products, and cultural design elements are used to convey the company’s mantra, “the road less travelled.”

Another aspect of Michael’s history that is reflected in Chapter2 is his passion for racing. He grew up riding BMX before racing off-road, then came road cycling, and a stint as a semi-professional. That alone is enough to account for Michael’s pre-occupation with aerodynamics, but I expect his family’s involvement with watersports encouraged his devotion to this field of science.

Chapter2’s first frameset, the Tere, sported a few aerodynamic touches and while it was designed “to eke out every aero advantage for a classic-looking frame”, Michael never considered it an aero road bike. His vision for that kind of bike was far more ambitious, which is where the new chassis, the Rere, comes in.

Aerodynamics, the UCI way

Road cyclists have long appreciated the importance of aerodynamics, but over the last couple of decades, the rise of carbon composites has ushered in a new era of zeal for cheating the wind. Once manufacturers started working with these materials, they quickly discovered that aerodynamic framesets and components could be sculpted with relative ease, and without any weight penalties, either.

This, in turn, has lead to all sorts of innovations, which attracted the scrutiny of the UCI and prompted a growing number of regulations that impose strict limits on what kind of designs are race-legal. This is nothing new for the governing body, which stepped in to outlaw fairings in 1914 and recumbents in 1934. Both designs dramatically improved the aerodynamics of a road cyclist, yet neither satisfied the spirit of the sport, which has always been contested on the grounds of athletic prowess rather than technical breakthroughs.

The UCI’s earliest regulations formally defined a race-legal road bike in terms of bottom bracket height, saddle position (relative to the bottom bracket), and the distance between the bottom bracket and the front wheel. In recent years, that definition has grown increasingly more complex with strict guidelines for the overall dimensions of each member of the frameset along with other edicts such as the “3:1” rule that limits the length of aerodynamic foils.

The Rere is race-legal, and it says so on the seat tube. Creating an aero race bike is not just about cheating the wind; it’s also about abiding by the UCI’s strict regulations.

For designers like Michael Pryde, these regulations limit the size of the palette that they have to work with when creating an aerodynamic road bike. It also makes for a finite number of design solutions, which explains why aero road bikes share many of the same features. Nevertheless, Pryde enjoyed the challenge and he is proud of the Rere, which he believes pushes the limits of UCI regulations.

Like so many aero road bikes, the Rere depends upon airfoil profiles and Kamm tails. The down tube is the most obvious example, and it has a remarkably slender cross-section that is maintained throughout the rest of the front triangle. Yes, there is a noticeable bulge at the bottom bracket, but the overall effect is that the Rere looks like a very sharp wedge that has been honed for splitting the air before it.

The UCI is very clear about the use of fairings on a road bike, however it is still possible to achieve some “integration” of components with the frame. In the case of the Rere, part of the down tube and the seat tube has been carved away to accommodate the front and rear wheels, respectively. Similarly, much of the fork crown nestles into the down tube, the seatpost clamp is hidden in the top tube, and the direct-mount rim brake callipers form a pretty clean line with the fork legs and seat stays.

Pryde made extensive use of a wind tunnel at Auckland University during the development of the Rere. It’s an expensive and time-consuming process, but it generally achieves superior results over computer modelling alone. Benchmarking is an important part of this process, too, and while Michael wasn’t prepared to share all of the results from these tests, he can prove that the Rere is significantly more aerodynamic than the Tere, as shown in the chart below:

The Rere bests the Tere (Chapter2’s first road frameset) at all yaw angles. Data and chart supplied by Chapter2.

With an average reduction in drag of ~100g, the Rere promises a power saving of at least 10W at 40km/hr, which is in the same realm as many other aero road bikes. That’s not enough to overhaul the capabilities of any rider, but it can certainly give them an edge, which can be helped a little more with Chapter2’s optional integrated bar/stem, dubbed the Mana.

The sleek composite cockpit complements the aerodynamics of the Rere. Like other aero cockpits, the Mana pairs a foil-shaped handlebar top with a horizontal stem angle and seamless integration with the frame. Chapter2 makes no specific claims for the Mana, and there is no pre-requisite to use the Mana with the Rere; a standard threadless stem and bars can be fitted to the Rere, if desired.

The Rere features a lot of familiar aerodynamic touches such as a fork crown that integrates with the down tube of the frame.

Pick a colour and define your own build

Chapter2 only sells framesets, not complete bikes, which should appeal to racers looking to upgrade their current chassis or those that like to handpick the parts for every new build. Shoppers can buy direct from Chapter2 via an online shop or they can get in touch with one of the brand’s distributors or dealers, which are located in a number of countries around the world.

At this stage, there is a choice of two colours for the Rere — matte black with gloss black highlights, or matte pearl white — but in time, additional limited and special edition paint schemes will be added to Chapter2’s catalogue, just like those developed for the Tere.

As for sizing, there is a choice of five frame sizes, as shown in the table below:

Overall, the geometry of the Rere is very similar to the Tere, although the stack is 5-6mm lower, and the reach up to 2mm greater, at every frame size. The 68mm bottom bracket drop is the same for all frame sizes, as is the 405mm chainstay length, while the fork rake depends upon the size of the frame. XS and S frame sizes are paired with a fork with 53mm of rake while sizes M-XL are supplied with a fork with 43mm of rake. The resulting trail is very consistent for all but the smallest frame size.

The similarities between the Rere and Tere extends to many of the specifications for the frame, too. Thus, they both have a BB86 bottom bracket shell, tapered head tube (1.125inch upper bearing, 1.5inch lower bearing), and internal cable routing with interchangeable fittings to suit mechanical and powered derailleurs. In addition, both framesets are available with a choice of rim or disc brakes (however the disc version of the Rere won’t be available until August of this year).

The similarities end with the seatpost and rim brake mounts. Rather than a round post, the Rere makes use of a proprietary elliptical seatpost with 15mm of offset. This post is reversible, so it can be flipped to bring the saddle much closer to the bottom bracket, which should appeal to TT/triathlon riders.

The Rere is supplied with a reversible seatpost. In the conventional position, there’s 15mm of offset. Turn it around, and the post will bring the saddle much closer to the bottom bracket.

In recent years, direct-mount rim brakes have become de rigueur for aero road bikes, so it’s not surprising to see that the Rere also opts for these callipers. Aside from a sleeker fit, direct mount callipers provide extra clearance so the Rere can accommodate tyres up to 28mm-wide, and won’t interfere with the wide rim profiles that have come to define the majority of aerodynamic wheelsets on the market today.

The size M Rere frame provided for this review weighed 1,158g; the uncut fork, 372g; seatpost, 194g; and the Mana bar/stem (120mm), 373g. In absolute terms, those are all pretty modest numbers, but understandable given that aerodynamic profiles generally add weight to a bike. Once assembled with a SRAM Red eTap groupset, Quarq DZero power meter, Fabric Scoop Pro Shallow saddle, and Knight Composites 50 Clincher TLA wheelset fitted with Schwalbe Pro One tubeless tyres, the bike weighed 7.19kg (15.85lb) without pedals or bottle cages, which is a pretty good result.

The value of the Rere frameset is also pretty good, which includes the frame, fork, headset, reversible seatpost, and a five-year warranty for AU$3,630/US$2,699/£2,227/€2,513. Buyers that want to add the Mana cockpit can expect to pay AUD$725/US$539/£454/€512 with a choice of five stem length/bar width combinations (80mm/400mm, 90mm/400mm, 100mm/420mm, 110mm/420mm, 120mm/440mm). Both prices are fair — even attractive — for products in this category, and should appeal to shoppers looking to update an aging race chassis.

Speed on tap

I grew up with a fascination for high-speed vehicles and sleek aircraft, but it had nothing to do with their raw power; it was their sleek beauty that excited my imagination. Science-fiction films like Tron captivated me, and I sought out books and magazines with images of fantastic machines to satisfy my eye. And from the moment I lifted the Rere out of its box, I found myself looking at it in the same way.

I wasn’t the only person to marvel at the bike while I had it for review. One onlooker called it an envelope while another admitted wryly that he couldn’t stop looking at its rear end. Michael’s quest for aerodynamic performance may have driven the design of the frame, but it also happens to look very cool and very, very fast.

I will dissect the performance of the Rere in a moment, but in short, the bike lives up to its looks. It is smooth, fast, and responsive; it’s also a thrill to ride.

Chapter2’s Mana cockpit slots in with the sleek front end of the Rere while SRAM’s eTap groupset keeps the number of cables to a minimum.

One of the first things that I wonder about for any aero road bike is how stiff it will be. Racers tend to prize a stiff chassis so I can understand the temptation for any designer to dial up the stiffness in order to maximise this appeal. In this case, however, the Rere defies expectations by delivering a forgiving ride quality.

This was something that I was quick to notice and it defined the Rere for the entirety of the review period. With that said, I wouldn’t call it a plush frameset that can soak up all road shock and vibrations, but it was quite removed from a typical race bike. I was able to venture onto unpaved tracks without any teeth-chattering moments, and I could spend a few hours on the bike without having to contend with any unnecessary discomfort.

The bike was quick to accelerate and firm under load when I was out of the saddle. It wasn’t exceptional in this regard, but on the spectrum of possibilities, it was close to the sharp end where all great race bikes reside. This is the spot where carbon composites come into their own thanks to that impressive stiffness-to-weight ratio, and Chapter2 has done a great job with capitalising on the potential of this material.

Rere is a Maori word that means “to flow”. Some Maori designs also grace the frame, honouring Michael Pryde’s heritage.

What that means for the rider is an agile and sprightly bike that always seems to be full of energy. It’s the kind of bike that always motivates me to ride harder and I end up behaving like a hoon, accelerating hard while threading my way through obstacles or finding the tightest line to hold onto without scrubbing my speed.

The steering of the Rere was perfect for this kind of riding, quick and responsive without unsettling the bike. The bike was always willing to turn in and I could hold a tight line without the threat of understeer. At the same time, the Rere was stable at high speeds and very well mannered.

That didn’t change in crosswinds, either. Yes, the 50mm Knight wheels could suffer in windy conditions with sudden deflections of the front wheel, but it wasn’t anything unusual for a 50mm-deep wheelset. By contrast, the Rere frameset did not catch much wind on its own, so it was an easy bike to ride regardless of the weather conditions.

As for the speed of the bike, I was consistently impressed with how well the bike seemed to flow once I was travelling over 30km/h. This is, of course, a highly subjective impression, but it was no less tangible. Not only did it seem easier to maintain high speeds on the Rere, but the bike also seemed to take longer to lose its speed on descents. As a result, I always felt like I was flying on the Rere.

While this kind of anecdotal evidence is not going to rival results from a wind tunnel, it was a very satisfying sensation, and if I’d spent the money on the bike, then I’d have no regrets. Be that as it may, I did conduct one short test that validated my impressions: I performed a 10km tempo effort on the Rere and recorded my time; then, I repeated the effort on my Baum Corretto (which is almost devoid of aerodynamic profiles).

On the basis of my impressions, I was slower on my Baum, and I had trouble matching the top speed of the Rere without digging deeper, which is exactly what my times showed. I suffered a deficit of ~5s/km while riding my Baum and my top speeds were always slower than the Rere.

Like many aero road bikes with rim brakes, the Rere requires direct-mount brake callipers.

While my Baum is far from sleek, there was a difference in the tyres I was using on each bike (28c Hutchinson Sector on the Baum; 25c Schwalbe Pro One on the Chapter2), which may have had an impact on the results as well. Strictly speaking, it’s one variable that should have been controlled for this “experiment”, however the goal was to test the accuracy of my impressions rather than dissect where the losses may have occurred.

As a result, I feel very confident in my assessment of the Rere: the bike felt like it was quicker because it was actually quicker. I expect that at some point the Rere will be included in an independent wind tunnel study that will be able to put a number on its relative performance, but based on my impressions of it compared to other aero road bikes, I believe it rivals the rest of the market.

There was more to the Rere than pure speed, because it was an easy bike to take into the hills, which was quite unexpected (much like the bike’s forgiving ride quality). All of the agility that I enjoyed on flat terrain was still in evidence, and it was really quite easy to pick up the pace and attack the terrain. Add in the extra speed that the Rere had to offer on descents and it starts to look like a very potent race bike.

There isn’t a lot of adjustment for the height of the stem, and the Mana cockpit has a horizontal stem angle that also keeps the bars low.

There was just one thing missing from the Rere: a stoutness about the front end of the bike. This may not be something that all buyers will want or need, but I’ve always been very sensitive to the way that the front end of a bike behaves. After spending a couple of decades on steel frames with small-diameter tubing, I’ve developed a distinct preference for a sturdy front triangle that displays a minimum amount of torsional movement under load.

That’s not to say that I found the front end of the Rere flimsy, because it wasn’t. The bike never felt like it was ever twisting around under me, even when I was sprinting out of the saddle. But what was really missing was a sense of connection with the front end of the bike. The amount of feedback was also diminished, and there were times when the steering response felt vague, too. With that said, I can’t say that it ever interfered with my ability to control the bike, and on the flip side, the extra torsional flexibility might have helped the compliance of the bike or minimised the amount of chatter from the front end.

The Mana bar/stem, by contrast, was very stiff, which may have accentuated the amount of flex elsewhere in the frame. I had no trouble getting comfortable with the bars, though it is worth noting that with the 70mm of reach makes the Mana much shorter than most compact bars. Had it been possible, I would have experimented with a longer stem to compensate for the reduction in reach to the drops and the hoods of the levers.

Knight’s 50 Clincher TLA wheelset was a good match for the Rere with a rim profile that was tall enough to add some speed while the overall weight was low enough to help the versatility of the bike in the hills. The quality of braking was satisfactory (the front wheel pulsed under brakes, presumably due to an uneven brake track) however the Rotor Rvolver rear hub was obnoxiously loud when freewheeling. This hub features an interesting clutch mechanism, and I’m told that some extra lube can tone down the noise it makes, but riders that prefer a quiet freehub won’t be pleased with it.

Summary and final thoughts

Michael Pryde has done an impressive job with the Rere. To start with, the frameset looks fantastic; indeed, it may be the classiest aero road bike that I’ve come across. Better yet, the Rere achieves some very sleek contours without resorting to proprietary parts (aside from the seatpost) or complicated component integration. As a result, buyers have plenty of freedom to choose the parts they want on the bike, and it is no more difficult to assemble than a typical road bike.

The stirring lines of the Rere raises expectations, and the bike manages to meet, or exceed, them with ease. The Rere feels as fast as it looks, it’s agile and responsive, and it also offers an inviting combination of sure and stable handling, a forgiving ride quality, and a well mannered disposition. In short, the Rere is a refined road bike that has been built to handle extra speed with aplomb.

While the Rere ticks a lot of boxes, including an impressive amount of versatility, it’s not a bike for everyone. It’s a race-day bike, a specialised rig best suited to riders that regularly choose to ride in the drops. It may not be quite sturdy enough for dedicated sprinters, however escape artists that like to ride alone should enjoy this bike a lot.

 

Rotor recently unveiled its Rvolver hubs that feature a novel weight-saving clutch mechanism.

Quarq’s DZero power meter integrates nicely with SRAM’s Red crankset.

 

The Mana cockpit has a couple of bolts under the stem for securing a computer mount.

 

Note the subtle cutout for the front wheel.

The cutout for the rear wheel is much more obvious from this side.

Knight Composites’ TLA 50 wheelset is a tubeless-ready clincher.

25c Schwalbe Pro One were fitted to the wheels with tubeless valves and sealant for the duration of the review period. These tyres are at their best when used tubeless.

 

 

The Rere provides clearance for 28mm wide tyres. The 25c Schwalbe tyres pictured here have an actual width of 27mm when mounted on the Knight wheelset.

There’s plenty of room under rear calliper as well.

Another aqua panel on the frame that features Maori designs.

 

 

Chapter2’s branding on the Rere is quite subtle.

Designed in New Zealand, made in Asia.

 

 

 

 

 

The post Chapter2 Rere frameset review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Giro Sport Design has a new flagship road helmet. It’s elegant. It rotates. It’s pricey.

It’s called the Aether. It looks like Giro’s Synthe, with a few subtle improvements — and one very significant development. The current Synthe MIPS has a conventional low-friction, thin plastic “slip plane” placed in between the foam liner and the retention system. But the new Aether utilizes something Giro and MIPS have developed in partnership over the past three years, which they’re calling MIPS Spherical.

First seen in Giro’s Avance MIPS snow helmet, MIPS Spherical takes the concept of protecting the brain from rotational forces to the next level.

The other common alternative to those standard MIPS plastic liners is to integrate the slip plane directly into the retention system, like Giro has done with the RocLoc Air in the new Vanquish aero road helmet, and the similar Float Fit system in the Bell Zephyr. But with Spherical MIPS, there’s instead an elastomer attachment placed between two layers of expanded polystyrene foam — the internal liner and the outer shell — allowing them to rotate independently during an angled impact.

As with all MIPS systems, the goal is to minimize how much the head violently twists upon impact, with the theory being that reducing how much the brain abruptly spins inside the skull helps to prevent brain trauma. Though the full product name of the helmet is Aether MIPS, that’s a bit redundant; unlike with other Giro models, there is no non-MIPS Aether. This helmet only exists because of MIPS Spherical technology; it’s in the DNA of the design.

The result is a MIPS system that spans the entire inner liner of the helmet, yet is invisible to the naked eye, with claims of better ventilation, lighter weight, improved comfort, and increased aerodynamics over the Synthe. Also increased? The price. We’ll get to that a little later. But first, the backstory.

MIPS: WHAT IT IS, WHY IT MATTERS

For all the R&D Giro has put into MIPS Spherical, they are not here to tell you it’s a safer helmet. It might be safer, but you didn’t hear that from them. For legal reasons, Giro — like most manufacturers — will not make specific claims about helmet safety. Every crash is different, every brain injury is different, and in-house attorneys warn against making promises to consumers about the performance of a helmet in an accident.

What Giro will say, however, is that within the constraints of laboratory testing, test engineers were able to see “repeatable benefits” with the MIPS Spherical system — a technology first incorporated into its US$600 Avance snow sports helmet in 2016, which was designed to protect against both high-speed crashes on ice as well as repetitive gate impacts during slalom racing.

Instead, Giro and MIPS are eager to tell the story of how much science and research goes into developing their products. That research includes three in-house tests that Giro began developing five years ago to help prove or disprove the MIPS concept — tests based around rotational, rather than linear, impacts.

The vision behind MIPS (Multi-Directional Impact Protection System) began in 1995 when Hans von Holst, a Swedish brain surgeon, repeatedly found himself operating on trauma victims who had been wearing helmets when their heads hit the ground; their skulls were not fractured, but they had still suffered brain injuries. Von Holst contacted the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and began research into head and neck injury prevention.

After conducting thousands of helmet tests, Holst and partners Peter Halldin and Svein Kleiven determined that most accidents result in oblique impacts — meaning slanted, neither parallel nor at a right angle — which causes rotational violence to the brain.

Existing helmets may have done their job in protecting the skull, but they weren’t doing enough to protect the brain, which is more sensitive to internal shear than to linear impacts. The human brain is soft, like gelatin or tofu, and suspended in cerebrospinal fluid. It doesn’t compress, but when your head violently rotates in an impact, different layers of the brain will accelerate at different rates. As a result, the billions of tiny nerve cells that comprise the brain can stretch and tear.

Yet, until recently, traditional helmets had historically only been tested for linear impact, not those more complex forces that occur when sliding or twisting. The first prototype of a MIPS-equipped helmet was tested at the University of Birmingham in 2000, but it would be another decade before it was embraced by the cycling industry.

Some might suggest that MIPS is no more than a marketing gimmick, but recent data says otherwise. In an independent study released last week, developed by Virginia Tech university and the US-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), helmets were ranked on the theoretical risk of concussion based on a more modern test protocol; the lower the percentage, the higher the ranking. The first 30 helmets to be included in the test covered a spectrum of prices and styles, but only four earned the top five-star rating: the Bontrager Ballista MIPS, the Louis Garneau Raid MIPS, the Bell Stratus MIPS, and the Specialized Chamonix MIPS. The top six rated helmets all use MIPS technology, and none of the bottom 10 were equipped with MIPS technology.

Granted, the study didn’t directly compare MIPS and non-MIPS versions of the same helmet, so it’s not 100% conclusive that adding MIPS makes a helmet safer. But it’s powerful circumstantial evidence.

The relationship between Giro and MIPS has grown so close over the last five years that former Giro general manager Greg Shapleigh, who had been with the brand since 1990, left to join MIPS last summer.

At a June product launch for the Aether in Scotts Valley, California — just outside of Santa Cruz — Shapleigh was on hand to speak about MIPS and the brand’s partnership with Giro in developing the Aether’s MIPS Spherical technology.

“MIPS is thrilled to have a partner like Giro,” said Shapleigh, who acknowledged that during his time at Giro, the helmet brand originally expressed skepticism of MIPS technology. “While some partnerships between MIPS and helmet brands are more commercial, this is more of a collaborative partnership, and MIPS only has a few of those. There’s no financial arrangement, and we know that Giro will use whatever works best. But our mindset is the same — to reduce the risk of brain injury.”

To those who still aren’t convinced, here’s how Eric Richter, Giro’s senior brand and business development manager, addresses that cynicism: “We all ride. Our friends ride. Our families ride. There is no reason for us to create anything less than our very best.”

DOME: GIRO’S IN-HOUSE TEST LAB

Inside Giro headquarters in Scotts Valley is the DOME test lab — DOME is an acronym for Design, Observation, Materials, Engineering — which includes text fixtures, 3D printers, injection- and thermal-molding equipment, an in-house wind tunnel, CNC machines, and more. The test lab is shared by Vista Outdoor brands Bell, C-Preme, and Giro, and is used to design, develop, and evaluate helmets for power sports, cycling, and snow sports.

Among the text fixtures demonstrated to the media during a tour of the DOME in June were the BRAD, Mono-rail, and Sled, all designed to evaluate how well helmets manage rotational motion. From an engineering perspective, MIPS defines rotational motion as “a combination of rotational energy (angular velocity) and rotational forces (angular acceleration) that both affect the brain and increase the risk for minor and severe brain injuries.”

After Giro was first approached by MIPS, following a period of review and discussion, DOME engineers sought a second opinion. They reached out to a Phoenix-based crash-testing lab called Exponent, where hundreds of crash-test dummies have their heads repeatedly slammed and twisted for test purposes. Exponent’s testing confirmed that MIPS technology was effective, and DOME and Exponent began designing their own rotational-test lab equipment, as none was on the market. In 2014, Giro unveiled its first MIPS-equipped helmets.

Early research MIPS had conducted determined that most often during crash, brain injuries occur when the head strikes at an angle. Simulating that angular impact allows Giro, and MIPS, to develop ways to redirect and attenuate, or absorb, the energy of an angled impact.

The BRAD test uses a helmeted 105-pound Biofidelic Rotational Anthropomorphic Dummy [BRAD], complete with head, articulating neck, and torso, that swings from the ceiling into an inclined ramp to measure rotational violence. The body mass assumes the size and weight of a 50th percentile adult, with an accurate center of gravity. To simulate how a helmet, and brain, might fare upon striking asphalt, sandpaper is applied to the surfaces where the helmets impact the test fixtures.

Video: The BRAD test fixture

The Mono-Rail test drops a helmeted head form onto an angled, stationary surface, replicating an oblique impact. The head form can be placed at different orientations: frontal, 90 degrees, tilted, or anywhere in between. The test is run with MIPS protection and without, with the aim of targeting a 30% reduction in angular violence.

Video: The Mono-rail test fixture

The Sled test sees a helmeted head form on a timed drop into a sliding plate, or sled; the impact causes the head form and helmet to rotate, simulating the impact of a crash. It uses a specific velocity to replicate a 30-degree impact trajectory — the angle at which many helmets impact the ground.

Video: The Sled test fixture

Combining data from these tests, Giro is able to determine how effective the MIPS system is and what can be done structurally to reduce rotational violence to the brain.

INTO THE AETHER: FIRST IMPRESSIONS

Over two days of riding near Giro’s headquarters in Scotts Valley, I rode the Aether in conditions that varied from 27°C (80°F) on a long, exposed climb in the afternoon to 7°C (45°F) along the coast during a morning roll-out.

Like the Synthe, the Aether is light, aerodynamic, and well ventilated. Deep internal channels in the liner create airflow over the scalp, and without the usual MIPS plastic liner, that air can now come into direct contact with your head. Giro claims the Aether surpasses the Synthe MIPS in all departments, including a 2.4% improvement in aerodynamic efficiency and 2.5% better cooling.

Climbing in direct sunlight, with little to no breeze, the Aether kept my head cool, comfortably. I never thought about it once, which is in some ways the highest praise you can give a helmet while suffering on a hot climb. I’ll need to wear it on a longer, hotter day to see if I can feel a difference, but the deep, unobscured channels certainly seem more effective.

Having worn a Synthe for the better part of the last four years, I felt right at home in the Aether. The updated RocLoc 5+ Air retention system offers a new level of vertical positioning — it slides up and down the back of the skull — and is tightened and loosened using Giro’s standard retention dial. Giro claims the new retention system offers the ability to tune the occipital contact points asymmetrically, but I haven’t figured out how, or why, I would do that. Still, the RocLoc 5+ Air retention system works, and works well.

I had no fit issues, and a perfect fit dialed in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. However, given the fact that the helmet is constructed of two independent layers of foam (which offer about 15mm of movement), the risk of rolling around impervious to a slightly cocked helmet is real. Aether owners will want to be sure to do a double take in the mirror on their way out the door.

You’d never know it on first glance, but the Aether’s outer shell is constructed of six individual pieces of polycarbonate that allow for the helmet’s wide, open vents. Asked for details on the construction, Giro said it was “not willing to share” the construction process.

One element on the Aether that stands out is the translucent Aerodynamic Ultimate Reinforcing Arch (AURA), a shatter-resistant piece of thermoplastic resin that runs across the top that connects and supports the outer shell. The AURA replaces a larger, structurally similar piece of foam on the Synthe, and contributes to the fact that the 250g Aether weighs 15g less than the Synthe MIPS. It also looks cool.

Also evident on first glance is the 3D Giro logo on the outer shell, which is laser-cut and pressed into the polycarbonate sheet from behind before it’s permanently in-molded in place. It’s a small detail, but like the AURA, it just looks sharp.

New rubber grippers placed on the outer vents help keep eyewear secure when not being worn. It’s a cool feature, though not something I personally would use often unless in a downpour or stopping for a long lunch.

The only issue I’ve had thus far with the Aether is that the MIPS system seems to yank a few hairs from the back of my head every time I take it off. That’s not unique to MIPS Spherical, and though it’s a minor annoyance, it can be a bit of a shock.

The Giro Aether will come in nine colorways, including three limited-edition colors, and a “Black Flash” reflective model.

In totality, Giro says the Aether is the “most advanced cycling helmet” the brand has ever created — a piece of equipment Giro’s senior director of marketing Dain Zaffke called a “stunning feat of engineering.”

“It took us three years to work through the design challenges,” Zaffke said. “It was touch and go; we weren’t sure we would get to this point, and at times I questioned whether we should try. I kept thinking, ‘If this won’t nail it, let’s just create a Synthe with integrated MIPS [into the retention system].’ It would have been easier to shoehorn this into a Vanquish. This is us flexing our muscle a bit.”

The Aether will be available in nine colorways, including three limited editions. The review sample provided to media at the recent product launch is a luminous matte black/blue pearl that has to be seen in sunlight to be fully appreciated. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I’d suggest it’s as elegant a cycling helmet as I’ve ever worn, though the matte black/blue pearl color wouldn’t have been my first choice. That nod would go to their “black flash,” which shows as matte black in sunlight but turns fully reflective in the face of headlights. A black helmet that is more visible at night than any other color? Yes, please.

AETHER VS. SYNTHE: IS MIPS SPHERICAL WORTH THE COST?

It’s impossible to view the Aether outside of the context of Giro’s four-year-old Synthe. Aesthetically, they look very similar, particularly from the front; less so from the rear. What’s different is largely under the hood.

The Aether is smaller and lighter than the Synthe. Giro claims it’s also cooler and more aerodynamic. The “is it safer?” question is a thorny one, but it stands to reason that the MIPS Spherical system offers better protection than the original MIPS slip plane used by the Synthe. When the Synthe launched in 2014, it was just as Giro was embracing MIPS, which is why the Synthe has been offered in MIPS and non-MIPS models for three years now; it was already in production, and the slip plane was an add-on.

Giro claims MIPS Spherical “improves rotational energy management” over previous MIPS systems while optimizing comfort and ventilation. It’s certainly the best-yet integration of MIPS into a road helmet. The technology is there, but you can’t see it.

Giro’s Synthe MIPS (left) is the forerunner to the Aether MIPS Spherical (right).

Rubber grippers placed on the outer vents of the Aether help keep eyewear secure when not being worn.

The Synthe and Aether share a similar profile.

The “SP” on the Aether’s yellow MIPS sticker signifies MIPS Spherical.

The similarities up front between the Synthe and Aether take a striking turn at the back of the helmets.

The slip plane evident in the Synthe MIPS (right) is nowhere to be seen in the Aether’s MIPS Spherical (left).

Deep internal channels in the liner force air to flow over the scalp.

Richie Porte and the rest of the BMC Racing team will wear the Giro Aether at the 2018 Tour de France.

The Aether does not replace the Synthe; instead, the Synthe MIPS drops in price, to US$220, and that’s an important consideration. It’s not fair to say the Aether is an updated version of the Synthe, yet outside of how they might perform in an impact, they look, feel, and perform similarly, at a cost differential of over US$100. That price difference is as inescapable as the aesthetic likeness.

For 2019, there will no longer be a Synthe model without MIPS protection. In fact, Giro claims there are now only two helmets in the brand’s entire cycling line that don’t offer a MIPS option; within the United States, every cycling helmet now comes in a MIPS version.

It’s worth pointing out that the non-MIPS Synthe earned four stars (out of a possible five) in that Virginia Tech-IIHS test, ranked 13th out the 30 helmets tested; the Synthe MIPS would be expected to score higher. I’ll be very interested to see how the Aether scores, though there’s been no timeline given as to when Virginia Tech and IIHS will conduct their next round of tests, or whether the Aether will be included.

Also, it’s worth keeping in mind is that while MIPS Spherical is proprietary to Giro, MIPS partners with dozens of other helmet brands. As Giro’s Eric Richter acknowledged, “Technically, another brand could try to replicate a spherical system using MIPS’s essential elements.” It may look different, and it may go by a different name, but we should expect to see this technology in other helmet brands in the future. Which brands, when, and what it might cost are unknowns.

So, in the context of Giro’s new flagship road model and its previous flagship road model, is MIPS Spherical and a handful of other improvements worth an additional US$105? It’s a decision every consumer will ultimately have to make for themselves. Perhaps additional testing information from Virginia Tech will eventually help bring the answer into focus. Perhaps not.

In the meantime, potential customers have to ask themselves a variation of the same question they’ve been faced with for years: What is protecting your brain worth to you? How do you put a price on it?

Just as all crashes (and brain injuries) are unique, the same can be said for account balances and financial circumstances. It’s all variable, and subjective.

If you’re sold on MIPS, you highly rate aerodynamics and ventilation, and your current helmet has seen more than two or three years of regular use, the Aether is absolutely worth consideration. If you bought your helmet in the last two years, and you’re happy with it, you can certainly get another season out of it. If you want the latest and greatest Giro and MIPS have to offer, and you’re willing to invest US$325 in head protection, the Aether awaits.

The post First look: New Giro Aether road helmet advances MIPS safety technology appeared first on CyclingTips.

I’ve long been a fan of Cannondale bikes. I admired them for many years and finally acquired my very first back in the mid-2000s: a CAAD7 in what is possibly the most magnificent paint job they’ve ever done. A clear coat of toffee apple red lacquer with Saeco decals. I still regret selling that bike.

Since then I’ve owned several Cannondales, including an original SystemSix with its carbon front triangle and rear alloy triangle. It was the stiffest thing I’d ever ridden up to that point. It rode as if aggression oozed from the frame and the handling is still up there with some of my favourite bikes.

I’ve always looked at Cannondale as a brand that leads the way. They were one of the first to embrace oversized alloy tubes, to the extent that a friend to this day is still known as Fatty — A nickname he acquired when he moved to my hometown back in the late ’80s. He was the first customer to roll through the door of my father’s bike shop with a Cannondale. Every other bike in the shop at that time was built from skinny Reynolds, Oria or Columbus tubing. He’d come to be known as “that bloke with the fat tubes”.

So it’s fair to say I was an avid Cannondale fan but that deep-rooted appreciation has lost much of its sheen in recent years. Recent additions to the Cannondale road line failed to wow me or stand out like they used to. Sure, they’d led the charge in a few cases when it came to the road market. They were one of the first out of the gate for an all-day comfort bike with the Synapse, and they were early adopters of gravel/mixed-surface riding with the Slate. But when it came to pure racing bikes, the SuperSix Evo line had its tweaks over the years, but to my eye didn’t offer anything groundbreaking or hugely innovative.

But with the new SystemSix — a name I’m glad to see back in the Cannondale catalogue — everything changes. It’s Cannondale’s first drastically different-looking and -performing road bike in recent years. Gone are the characteristic round tubing shapes and silhouettes Cannondale’s known for. The all-new SystemSix is a sleek, highly engineered bike that’s taken three years to come to fruition.

While Cannondale claims the new SystemSix isn’t an aero bike, it is certainly an aero-looking machine. It has the lines, the details and the data to back it up. The question remains: Why is Cannondale late to the aero game? Did they bide their time until they felt they could add something new to the market?

As with pretty much any fast bike that comes out nowadays, the term “world’s fastest production bike available today” was thrown about at the SystemSix launch. Yes, Cannondale has its white papers, graphs and analysis to back all this up but come tomorrow, or the day after, I guarantee you we’ll hear the same claim from others.

So let’s leave that as it is and dig into the finer details. Let’s also look at why Cannondale is reluctant to label this an out-and-out aero bike.

Not the classic Cannondale silhouette.

Reboot or remake?

The SystemSix name is an apt one this time around. It’s Cannondale’s first road foray into a complete integrated package. We’ve seen “SI” (System Integrated) splashed on Cannondale products for many years, but this is truly the brand’s first top-to-tail bike where everything has been incorporated in the design and development phase. Cannondale claims it’s a six-point design process, involving the frame, fork, bars, stem, seat post and wheels.

The highly sculpted frame certainly has an impact. As with any high-tech bike now it’s been optimised and designed using both computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and wind tunnel testing. And the bike has all the design aspects you’d expect from a modern drag-beating bike. The forks are wide, they allow wider tyres and a cleaner airflow, plus the fork legs are asymmetric to accommodate stresses from the disc brakes.

The fork flows into the headtube and downtube exceptionally cleanly. A unique shape at the base of the headtube forces airflow from the rear of the fork’s truncated shape upwards and steers it away from interrupting the airflow at the headtube/fork crown. It’s just one of the distinctive features on the bike.

Rake is 55mm on the 47cm and 51cm models and 45mm on the remaining sizes. Headtube angles range from 71.2º though to 73º. In terms of handling, it all adds up to a very classic-feeling Cannondale, something I was pleased to see unchanged from the rest of their elite road range.

Dropped, widened stays allow tyres up to 30mm wide.

Dropped rear stays flaring from the seat tube are nothing new. Indeed, we’ve seen this on a plethora of bikes in recent years. The frame can accommodate tyres up to 30mm wide but the bike comes equipped with 26mm tyres (actual width, more on this later). The dropouts are full carbon and incorporate Mavic-designed Speed Release axles, saving weight (over regular thru-axles) and allowing for faster and easier wheel changes. The chainstays are thinner in the middle — as on the Synapse — which should make for a more comfortable ride quality. Chainstays are 405mm across all seven frame sizes, from 47cm through to 62cm.

The seattube and downtube are truncated in design, with a now-standard cut-out on the rear of the downtube to allow the wheel to sit nice and close.

None of these features are anything we haven’t seen in some shape or form before, but it’s all very well executed and from an aesthetic point of view Cannondale has done well to make a coherent, clean and fresh-looking bike. In a word, it’s slick.

While frame weight wasn’t something Cannondale shouted about at the presentation, the new SystemSix is acceptably weighted for a bike of this design. The smallest 47cm frame reportedly tips the scales at 894g, the 56cm at 981g, and the 62cm at 1,085g. All weights are given without paint, which adds roughly 70g, and small parts, which equals another 65g.

As we touched on briefly above, the new SystemSix is disc-equipped, which almost feels like a given now for aero bikes. How times have changed!

The KNØT stem with its plastic clip-on base plate.

The underside of the KNØT stem. It’s surprisingly weighty, but hides the cables well and is easily accessible.

The underside of the KNØT stem, this is plastic and easily removed for service. The same goes for the spacers. It’s all designed to allow ease of service. We’ve seen spacers similar to this on the 2018 BMC TeamMachine.

The KNØT bars and stem almost look like a one-piece. Luckily they’re not. Not the prettiest of stems, but it is indeed stiff.

Stiff!

The bars have a pleasing shape and a comfortable drop and flare.

The KNØT seatpost, with the perch of choice being a Prologo Dimension saddle.

Turn the bars over 50º on either side and you’ll get that toe overlap feeling.

The front brake hose passes through the front of the headset.

 

Full speed ahead (Aye aye captain!)

For its new integrated system, Cannondale has designated all components (bars, stem, seat post and wheels) with the name “KNØT”, as in the nautical speed.

The proprietary bar, the KNØT SystemBar, is truncated in shape, like much of the frame. Unlike some integrated bar/stem platforms these carbon bars are actually adjustable in angle, offering 8º for the rider. I found the SystemBar pretty comfortable in the short time I had it, but I’d be interested to see if that comfort holds up on a longer, all-day ride.

The slight flair of 30mm and shallow drop reminded me of the FSA Compact bars, which may be no coincidence as the non-Hi-MOD SystemSix models come with Vision (FSA’s aero brand) bars and stem as standard. A GPS mount attaches neatly to the SystemBar and can be removed when not in use. The mounting area can also be covered up with a grommet if run sans-computer. The bars come in 38, 40, 42, and 44cm widths. As you might expect, all cables are internally routed. In fact, the whole bike’s internal routing is exceptionally well executed.

Matched to the bars is the KNØT stem, wholly made of aluminium. The bars are cradled by the stem’s C-shaped base, a design that allows 8º of bar angle adjustment. Underneath, a cover plate clicks on once you’ve tidily routed the cables. The headset spacers feature a split hinge design for ease of service and stem height adjustment – allowing the latter without disconnecting cables. Again we’ve seen similar on other bikes already — for instance, the latest BMC TeamMachine or Giant Propel Disc.

The cockpit and front end are undeniably stiff but in terms of aesthetics, I did find the stem a bit on the ugly side.

The lines of the cockpit flow nicely into the headtube. Here the front brake hose is internally routed, not through the headset bearings but in front through a separate liner. This design was settled upon for ease of servicing and to limit cable-pinching while steering. The slight tradeoff though is that the steering is limited to 50º in either direction.

To test this I attempted a tight turning circle on a narrow road and the limitation caught me off guard. It was a feeling similar to toe overlap. Track stand enthusiasts may also find it a niggle to overcome. In real-world riding, however, the 50º limitation shouldn’t be a problem.

Deep and wide, at 64mm deep and 32mm wide.

All the graphics on the wheels match the frame colour. A nice touch.

A top view of the wide rim matched to the 26mm tyres.

 

 

Alloy hubs were fault-free.

The Speed Release axles are quick and efficient.

Wheels: The starting point

A fast bike needs fast wheels, and the Hollowgram KNØT64 wheels are Cannondale’s offering to this end. Though fully designed and engineered by Cannondale in-house, these wheels actually infringe slightly on a patent held by HED. However, Cannondale has a licence allowing the brand to keep the design and not upset HED or the company’s lawyers.

The tyre and wheel system is designed together. The result is that maximum aerodynamic performance occurs when a 26mm tyre (actual width on the wider rim) is used in conjunction with the wide 32mm rim shape. This is the bit that infringes on HED’s patent.

In the case of the SystemSix Hi-MOD range, these bikes come shod with Vittoria Rubino Pro Speed 23c tyres. The wide internal bead of 21mm allows you to run the tyres at a lower pressure. I ran mine at about 70psi (4.8bar) and still found them to be fast-rolling. The widest point of the rim reaches 32mm. At 765 grams for the front and 877 grams for the rear, they’re pretty acceptable for such a deep wheel.

Rims are full carbon with a 20 spoke count and both wheels are paired with alloy hubs. At only 23mm in diameter, the front hub is noticeable small for a disc-brake wheelset.

But it’s not an aero bike?!

With all this in mind, it seems odd that Cannondale isn’t talking about the SystemSix as an aero bike. Instead, it’s being sold as what seems to be a fast bike for all road occasions, as Nathan Barry, lead aerodynamic specialist on the project told us.

“People have a negative connotation … there are certain people in the cycling community that hear ‘aero bike’ and don’t want one,” he said. “[Perhaps] that past experience [was] with other products that had optimisation for aerodynamics but at the expense of a lot of other characteristics … and that compromises the experience of riding your bike. We feel we’ve overcome a lot of those so it doesn’t deserve to be bracketed as that.”

Instead, Cannondale is pitching the new SystemSix as a bike designed not just to help you go fast on the flat, but also uphill, downhill, in a bunch, or on your own. In short, as the Cannondale literature says, the SystemSix has been designed to be “every day faster”.

The stats are all quite impressive. Compared against a “modern race bike, such as an Evo”, 10% less power is reportedly needed to maintain speed when riding the SystemSix at 30km/h. In a 200-meter sprint at 60km/h, all other things being equal, SystemSix will apparently beat a race bike like the Evo to the line by four bike lengths. At 48km/h, the SystemSix reportedly saves you over 50 watts.

Cannondale even claims that the SystemSix is faster uphill, or at least up to a gradient of 6%. It’s worth checking out the latter part of our first ride video (see the top of this post) as we speak with Nathan Barry about these numbers.

Power2max comes as standard on the Hi-MOD framesets, but if you actually want to use it, it’s going to cost you €490/$490.

The silver paint is actually reflective. A nice safety feature.

Scan that code and the Cannondale App unlocks a host of features.

The two bottle cage positions.

Extra features, powermeters and an app

Bottle cages aren’t normally a feature of a new road bike but Cannondale has made them such. There are two mounting options on the downtube: a higher location that’s easier to reach, or a lower setting that’s better for overall aerodynamics.

Though the bikes stand out in design they’ve also been designed to stand out in traffic. For that added bit of road safety, Cannondale has chosen to use reflective graphics in many places. One example can be seen on the Ultegra build where the rear stays, down tube and rear of the seat post all have a silver reflective surface. It’s a small but nice touch.

In Di2-equipped versions, the junction box is hidden in the downtube, making it easily accessible. Above this is something many will not take notice of: a graphic that looks like a QR code which, if scanned with Cannondale’s latest app, will unlock an augmented reality experience. Hold your phone over the bike and the phone will display a gaggle of information, including an exploded diagram of the internals, catalogue information, part numbers, CFD airflow data, and a mechanical manual. It’s all very geeky, but also very cool. It’ll be interesting to see the development of this technology and how it could help the everyday rider.

Cannondale has partnered with power2max for its top-end models. The Hi-MOD Dura-Ace Di2, Hi-MOD Ultegra Di2 and Hi-MOD Dura-Ace Di2 Womens builds all come with Cannondale’s own HollowGram SiSL2, BB30 chainset combined with power2max’s NG Eco powermeter. The niggly bit here though is that unless you pay the $490/€490 “activation fee” to power2max, the powermeter will, in essence, be redundant.

It was explained at the SystemSix launch that the power2max activation fee could be something of a selling point for retailers. The industry has a habit of not selling bikes at full RRP, and if they do it’s usually a case of the retailer throwing in freebies. A free activation of a powermeter on a $7,499 or $10,999 model bike may very well be the bargaining chip a shop needs.

Pricing

The new SystemSix range is split into two frame variants: the higher-grade all-new BallisTec Hi-Mod frame, coming in either a Dura-Ace Di2 Hydro (US$11,000 / £8,000) or Ultegra Di2 Hydro (US$7,500 / £6,500) build. These come with the new KNØT64 wheelset and the matching KNØT SystemBar. The BallisTec Hi-MOD women’s offering is slightly different, featuring the same Dura-Ace Di2 Hydro groupset but with Vision’s Metron 4D bar matched to a Vision Trimax OS stem (US$7,500 / £6,500). The Hi-MOD is also available as a frameset (US$4,199 / £TBC)

The lower-grade yet still-new BallisTec carbon SystemSix range comes in two builds and two colours: a lime green or a graphite grey. This build is made up of a Dura-Ace (mechanical) hydro groupset with the KNØT64 wheels and Vision’s Metron 4D flat bars with Vision’s Trimax OS stem (US$7500 / £6,000) plus Cannondale’s lightweight HollowGram Si SpideRing chainset. Next in line is the Ultegra (mechanical) Hydro flavour (US$4,000 / £3,500), which loses the KNØT64 wheels in favour of Fulcrum 400 DBs but keeps Cannondale’s Si chainset and the same Vision cockpit. A women’s Ultegra option is offered, too.

Just don’t call it an aero bike.

Riding the bike

Unfortunately, I didn’t get to spend as much time on this bike as I’d initially intended. Let’s just say that a food allergy saw me trade time in the saddle for time on the bathroom floor. But I did manage to take the new SystemSix for a two-hour spin on some varied terrain around the Girona area. It was certainly enough to get a rough idea of the bike’s characteristics.

Cannondale claims the SystemSix is not an out-and-out aero bike but I’d dispute this. It’s a damn fast ride, so let’s put it in the aero stable. With the addition of the new SystemSix, Cannondale now has a nicely rounded range. The Evo can be seen as Cannondale’s all-round climbing workhorse, the Synapse is the fast comfort bike, and the Slate is the do-it-all gravel/all-surface machine.

In the week leading up to the launch, I’d been filming on the roads around Girona and the Costa Brava using an aero bike from a different brand. When comparing Cannondale’s “fast all-round bike” versus the competitor’s aero offering, the SystemSix was in a different league. From the first few moments spent rolling out of town, the SystemSix gave the sense that I’d be hacking along at a few extra kilometres an hour than normal.

As mentioned previously, nothing here feels groundbreaking — it’s all been done in some way already. But as a package, as a system, it delivers. It’s been done right — as a first attempt, Cannondale has hit the nail firmly on the head.

It does slip up in places, though. I feel the SystemSix isn’t as plush as the Evo, but I’d be happy to ride this bike all day as it’s not uncomfortable on rough stuff either. It appears to punch through the rough roads as opposed to gliding over them. I’m sure a wheel change for something shallower would have a huge impact on the bike’s ability to smooth things out.

As a package, the frame and wheels are just too aero to be classed as anything but an aero bike. The 64mm deep wheels wouldn’t be anyone’s choice for hauling up any sort of long climb. So swapping out for something shallower wouldn’t just smooth things out but also open up the SystemSix’s climbing potential too (at least on steeper stuff).

In the limited time I had the bike I only climbed two short sharp hills on the outskirts of Girona. I’d love to ride it more before passing full judgment on the bike’s climbing prowess. Unfortunately, in the time I did get to ride it I found that the front end was just too stiff for me when standing and climbing. Personally, I like a bike with a bit of ‘whip’ or ‘flow’ to the front. But if you want a bike that will not waste a single ounce of effort put in, but is slightly unnatural in its doing so, then this bike should be considered.

The stiff front-end matched to the huge bottom bracket and rear end makes it feel like it’s kicking under you when sprinting — exactly the “head down, arse up” formula that racers would be after. For sprinters, descenders and breakaway riders, this bike is the ideal choice.

Handling is what you expect from Cannondale and I was very pleased to see that this character remains universal across the brand’s elite road models. It was sharp, on point and predictable. The same goes for fit: low and long is certainly possible.

As it comes, this bike may not be for me. A few changes though — replacing the wheels and the stem — would alter it just enough for me to really consider it. Importantly, this bike gets me excited about Cannondale’s road division again.

It’s going to be exciting to see where this bike is used at the Tour de France. Will we see Rigoberto Uran smashing up the medium mountains on it? Will Sep Vanmarcke use it on the cobbles when the tour reaches Roubaix? After all, it’s not an aero bike — “it’s just a fast bike for everyone.”

Oh, and why did it take so long for this bike to come together? Well, as Nathan Barry said: “It’s been something on the company’s radar, but we’ve not had the people or the resources to really do the job that they wanted to do”. Now that it’s finished, they’ve done a fine job indeed.

The name has been revived, but does it live up to it?

Bottle cages can be moved into two positions, one for ease of entry, the other for aerodynamic gains.

The rear end is neat and tidy with the wheel tucked away tightly under the seat tube.

Dropped, widened stays allow up to 30mm-wide tyres.

The silver paint is actually reflective. A nice safety feature.

 

Rubino Pro Speed tyres come as standard.

There’s plenty of sleek lines on the bike.

 

 

The asymmetric fork accommodates the stresses of disc brakes.

 

The post Cannondale 2019 SystemSix first-ride review: ‘Don’t call it an aero bike!’ appeared first on CyclingTips.

This is a story of lessons learned.

As of this week, the Specialized Venge is officially in its third generation, and the latest iteration is many things the last was not. It’s not only a logical step forward, it’s a necessary step back into the real world, where bikes are ridden and races are raced.

It’s not that the old Venge Vias was bad. It wasn’t. It was just annoying to work on and didn’t ride very well, and it was kind of ugly. Or shall we say polarizing? Those ugly wing bars were very polarizing.

The new Venge isn’t any of those unfortunate things. It’s easy to work on and relatively comfortable and really quite striking. And it’s faster, too, so Specialized says. And lighter. And stiffer, but only in the right places. It’s better. I’m happy to say that unequivocally, which is pretty rare.

The funny thing is that it was mostly made by the same core team of engineers and designers. They just learned a few lessons along the way.

The place to start the story of the new Venge is probably with Ingmar Jungnickel. Back at university in Germany he developed a test to research the effect of high profile racing wheels on the dynamic stability of bicycles in crosswinds. Later, an intern, he developed a system for measuring drag in a wind tunnel that is now used by WorldTour teams and the German national team. He did these things before he was 25. This is the sort of individual we’re dealing with.

Specialized has a wind tunnel. They call in the Win Tunnel, because they’re very good at marketing, and it was an integral part of the development of the old Venge Vias. Chris Yu, the aerodynamic lead on that project and also a glorious super nerd, spent hours in the tunnel, working through hundreds of iterations of the frame until they found something they thought was fast. And it was; there’s no question the Venge Vias was fast.

The problem was that in their dedication to aerodynamic gains the engineers at Specialized let a few rather important things slide. They forgot, for example, that it’s a good thing to be able to add or remove a headset spacer without detaching and re-running brake lines. The ability to put a new stem on with fewer than four hands is also good. A bike that handles well is really good — vital, almost. They made tubes narrow and integrated everything and the result was a very, very fast bike that was just not very good at being a bike you’d actually want to ride.

This required a solution. Part of that solution lay in finding a way to keep the bike fast while improving the way it rode.

This is where Ingmar comes in. He arrived shortly before development began for the new Venge. Specialized needed fast tube shapes that would also allow for predictable, dependable handling and good ride quality. Ingmar found them in a supercomputer.

Ingmar set about combining and rewriting a pile of computer programs to create a custom bit of software that churns through thousands of tube shape iterations in the time it would take Chris Yu to get through one or two. Horribly simplified (sorry Ingmar), the software runs CFD (computational fluid dynamics) and FEA (finite element analysis) for each shape and keeps working until it finds a shape that is drag optimized for particular weight and stiffness targets.

The shapes the program churned out became a new launch point. The engineering team had what they believed to be the optimal head tube shape, downtube shape, seat stay shape, fork leg shape, even how the fork leg should be tapered. They had shapes that were just as aero as the old bike, or more so, but that were also fatter, rounder, and stiffer. The frame could be lighter, it could ride better, and aerodynamics wouldn’t be sacrificed.

That’s what Specialized says, anyway. Did it work?

Meet the new Venge

The new Venge is lighter, it rides far better, and, according to Specialized, it’s faster than the old one. It’s also better looking and the integration is better thought out and more user-friendly. It will only be sold with disc brakes and only with electronic drivetrains. Here’s the full breakdown, feature-by-feature.

Is the Venge lighter?

The Venge Vias was portly, around 1200 grams for the frame and another 410 for the fork. The new Venge drops those figures down to 960 grams and 385 grams, respectively, a loss of around 20%. These are claimed weights, mind. But there’s reason to believe they’re at least close: Specialized also claims that the S-Works Venge comes in at 7.1kg with deep, 64mm Roval wheels, and I just weighed the one we have here and it came in at 7,152 grams.

Is the Venge stiffer?

Obviously, we haven’t done any third-party testing yet. Specialized claims that bottom bracket stiffness improves relative to the Vias with the greatest gains at larger sizes (18% stiffer for a 61cm).

Front end stiffness is improved as well. The engineering goal for the new stem was to match or exceed the oversized Zipp SL Sprint stem popular with sprinters like Peter Sagan and Tom Boonen (who rode it with the logo covered in tape or paint). According to Specialized, that goal has been achieved.

Specialized admits that a drawback of the old wing shaped Vias bar was a lack of stiffness. The new bar is flat and uses one of Ingmar’s optimized shapes. Combined with the stiffer stem, the difference is dramatic. The front end feels far more confident and than it did on the Vias, particularly out of the saddle.

Did they fix the cockpit?

Well, they got rid of the gullwing bar, so that’s a step in the right direction already. The purpose of that bar was to allow for a flat stem (-17 degrees) while retaining the same fit, which improved aerodynamics. Specialized apparently decided that this particular marginal gain wasn’t worth it.

The new Aerofly II bar uses a flat top that is slightly textured and has 80mm of reach to 130mm of drop.

There are a couple other important changes to the cockpit area. You can now run any handlebar with the Venge stem. You can also run most aftermarket stems using a universal stem transition spacer in place of the Venge spacers.

Those Venge spacers are clever. The hydraulic brake lines still run down through the head tube, which used to mean that adding or removing a spacer required removing and re-running the brake lines. No more. Now the spacers twist apart, so you can easily mess with your position.

Engineer Doug Russell told me he spent months thinking about nothing but cockpit integration and ease of use. Well, Doug, kudos. Those were months well spent.

Is the Venge more comfortable?

Yes, but not by much.

Is the Venge more aerodynamic?

Aero is kind of the whole point of a bike like this, after all. So, did Specialized manage to pull off some aero magic? A wider, stiffer, lighter bike that’s also more aero? They say they have.

That chart doesn’t provide a lot of detail, and Specialized doesn’t provide much more elsewhere. They do say, however, that the new Venge will save you 8 seconds over 40k compared to the Venge Vias at zero degrees yaw (straight on).

The Venge now comes with three available bottle cage mounting options, two on the downtube and one on the seat tube. Either downtube option provides the same aerodynamics, apparently. Interestingly, if you’re only going to run one bottle, it’s fastest on the down tube, rather than the seat tube.

(Note: You may see the opposite elsewhere on the Internet. Due to a typo, Specialized’s white paper on the bike says the seat tube is faster. We checked in with Yu and he confirmed the down tube is the faster option.)

Compatibility

The new Venge is only compatible with electronic drivetrains, and will only come with disc brakes, which use the flat mount standard.

The bottom bracket is a BB30. Thru-axles are 100×12 and 142×12.

The new Venge will fit up to a 32mm tire, which is awesome. It comes stock with 26mm tires.

Pricing

A complete S-Works Venge will set you back US$12,500 / AU$14,500. A frameset is US$5,500 / AU$5,600.

First ride review of the Specialized Venge

If it wasn’t clear from the rest of this review, I wasn’t a huge fan of the Venge Vias. Neither were a lot of pros — Mark Cavendish told me the Vias rim brakes were terrible just days after the bike was launched. Yu admits that he had to go to the Tour de Suisse and Tour de France that year to do damage control with athletes and mechanics. The Venge Vias was aero, but it turns out aero is not, in fact, everything.

That lesson has been learned. I’ve been impressed with virtually every aspect of the new Venge, from little details like the brake line routing and headset spacers to big details like cockpit stiffness and overall ride quality. It’s a better bike to live with and ride every day. And if you believe Specialized’s own data, it’s still faster.

My favorite aero road bike of all time remains the original Scott Foil, mostly because it didn’t feel like an aero bike at all. It just felt like a stiff, lively race bike. That’s how the Venge feels. It’s too early to say if it tops my all-time list, as I’ve only been on it for a week and a half, the signs are promising. The move to wider tubes, made possible by Ingmar’s optimization, changes the character of the bike completely. It’s better out of the saddle and far better in hard corners, when quite a lot of steering input happens at the saddle but needs to be translated to the front wheel.

The cockpit is a dramatic improvement. It’s stiffer, which is nice if you’re a sprinter, but it’s also just a nicer place to rest your hands. The tops have a bit of surface texture and are relatively comfortable even without bar tape. And though everything appears to be hyper-integrated and even proprietary, it’s not. That visual integration comes mostly through the use of cleverly shaped caps and spacers. You can run whatever bar and stem you want. That’s a good move on Specialized’s part.

I’m not going to say the new Venge is comfortable. It’s a race bike. It doesn’t apologize for being a race bike. But it’s not uncomfortable, either. I guess that’s about as good as it gets in this space — though I imagine the new Madone with the ISO Speed Decoupler is a cushier ride.

If you want more comfort, just throw on some bigger tires. The Venge will take up to a 32. Run those at 50psi and you’ll get more compliance than any frame can possibly provide.

Did I mention it looks good? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. But this thing looks good. It turns heads.

Specialized loves its #aeroiseverything hashtag. But bikes, like the races they’re in, aren’t all about the numbers. The new Venge is a reflection of that. Lessons, learned.

The post The new 2019 Specialized Venge first-ride review: Aero is not everything appeared first on CyclingTips.

Aero road bikes have historically been about compromises, with extra speed often coming at the expense of ride quality, weight, and/or real-world usability. But BMC’s thoroughly revamped Timemachine Road joins the latest crop of aero road bikes to challenge that notion, promising impressive comfort, low weight, and reasonable versatility to go along with its wind-cheating shape.

But does it actually deliver? 170km of riding over two days hardly comprises a proper long-term review, but based on CyclingTips U.S. technical editor James Huang’s initial impressions, BMC has come up with a pretty convincing argument.

Time for a reset

BMC debuted the original Timemachine Road back in 2012, and while it was visually stunning, it was hardly a knockout. Its ride quality was choppy, the integrated rim brakes didn’t work that well, and even BMC now acknowledges that much of the bike’s aerodynamic advantage went away once a pair of bottles and cages were attached. Riders on the company’s own World Tour team haven’t even used it much, and the model disappeared from the company catalog entirely for the 2018 model year.

All of that has now been corrected with the new Timemachine Road, which is not only claimed to be faster on the road, but also easier to live with, better looking, and strangely comfortable. And as is becoming increasingly common, the Timemachine Road will only be offered with disc brakes.

BMC will only offer the Timemachine R01 with disc brakes; there is no rim-brake version at all.

Despite the improvements, the new bike is actually more conventional in several ways.

For one, the old external steerer tube has been replaced with a standard tapered setup, and the original Timemachine Road’s lobed tube profiles have gone away in favor of more typical Kamm tail shapes with those telltale flat trailing edges. Many BMC design hallmarks still carry over, however, such as the dropped seatstays, semi-angular styling cues, and pleasantly restrained graphics. The bike’s frontal profile remains remarkably minimal as well.

BMC has ensured that there will be no complaints about braking performance on this latest version, either. Thanks in no small part to the UCI finally officially making disc brakes legal across all road disciplines, the new Timemachine Road is all-in on the technology; there are no rim-brake options, and the team is expected to use them at the Tour de France. Going along with that shift are the usual flat-mount caliper interfaces and 12mm front and rear thru-axles, and the front caliper is further shielded from oncoming air with a tidy little fairing.

The disc brakes may add weight to the overall package relative to rim brakes, but at least some of that is offset by a lighter frameset. Claimed weight for the new Timemachine Road frame is a highly respectable 980g, plus 410g for the matching fork — about 200g lighter than before, and a modest 240g penalty relative to the latest disc-brake Teammachine SLR. BMC says the Timemachine is nearly as stiff as the Teammachine at the bottom bracket, too, while actually posting better full-frame torsional rigidity on the test bench.

Flat-backed Kamm tail tube shapes are used throughout the new BMC Timemachine R01 aero road bike.

Naturally, BMC also claims big aerodynamic advantages over the Teammachine, to the tune of 8W of power savings when traveling at 40km/h, or an extra 1.5km/h at the same power output. Those figures were measured on a velodrome, and BMC says the benefits on the road in more realistic wind conditions are greater yet, with as much as 18W of savings at a 15° yaw angle.

Geometry-wise, the new Timemachine is about what you’d expect for the genre. Rider positioning is very aggressive, with 3-6mm more reach and 10mm less stack than the Teammachine, depending on size. Wheelbases are 5-10mm longer and there’s a touch more bottom bracket drop — just a single millimeter, from 69mm to 70mm — but BMC has adjusted the trail dimension to be a consistent 62mm across the entire Timemachine Road size range for even quicker-feeling front ends than the Teammachine.

It’s the little things

Taking a closer look at the new Timemachine Road reveals a wealth of other aero-focused details.

BMC has been big on integrated cockpits and fully hidden cabling for its road bikes lately, so it’s no surprise to see both features on the new Timemachine Road. Just like on the Roadmachine and Teammachine, the Timemachine Road uses a proprietary stem with a bolt-on plastic cover on the underside that conceals the cables as they make their way from the handlebar, down the flattened sides of the steerer tube, and into the frame. Also as with the Roadmachine and Teammachine, the stem on the Timemachine Road uses a standard 1 1/8in steerer clamp diameter, a shaped upper headset cover, and profiled-to-match headset spacers that are split so as to facilitate changes in handlebar height.

There’s no denying that the front end of the new BMC Timemachine R01 is gloriously clean and tidy. And unlike many other integrated aero cockpits, this one isn’t a complete nightmare to work on, either.

Also carrying over is the array of integrated faceplate-mounted accessories. BMC only supports late-model Garmin computers for now, but anything that uses the standard GoPro finned interface will work. I personally use Wahoo Fitness computers, for example, and at the launch event, BMC was prepared with 3D-printed aftermarket mounts.

But whereas those other two cockpits use conventional 31.8mm-diameter handlebar clamps (which also makes them compatible with nearly every aftermarket handlebar), BMC has equipped the one on the Timemachine Road with a downsized 25mm diameter. According to BMC, this reduces the frontal area for better aerodynamic performance, but still allows for user-adjustable bar angle, unlike one-piece setups that provide far less positioning flexibility.

At least for now, there’s just a single carbon fiber handlebar to match, though, built with a curiously compact ergonomic bend and a slight kink at the outer end of the tops to provide a little extra wrist clearance while sprinting.

BMC is only offering the Timemachine R01 with a compact-reach, ergonomic-type bar for now, which doesn’t seem well-suited to the bike’s purpose. Rest assured that a more aggressive option will be added later, if only to accommodate the team’s sponsored pros.

That downsized handlebar clamp diameter isn’t the only way the Timemachine Road stem differs from the one on the Roadmachine or Teammachine, either. BMC has built the new Timemachine Road stem with an aggressively flattened profile measuring 50mm-wide but just 30mm-tall. In terms of cross-section, the new stem resembles a squashed “D” lying on its side, which supposedly offers the same sort of ride quality benefits as the D-shaped carbon seatposts now used throughout the company’s road range (and also widely used throughout the industry). In fact, BMC boldly claims that, when taking the stem into account, the front end of the Timemachine Road is actually more comfortable than the Teammachine.

Other features on the new Timemachine Road include a hidden internal seatpost binder, an optional direct-mount rear derailleur hanger for Shimano drivetrains, a proprietary carbon fiber aero seatpost with three built-in offset options (-30mm, -15mm, and 0mm), a PF86 press-fit bottom bracket shell, and a hidden compartment in the down tube underneath the bottle cage to hold a Shimano Di2 junction box. 25mm-wide tires are fitted stock to each complete Timemachine Road, but BMC says 28mm-wide ones will easily fit.

Nifty add-ons

BMC’s quest for drag reduction hasn’t ended with the frame, fork, or cockpit. This time around, frame designers fully accounted for bottles by collaborating with Elite on a set of profiled cages made just for the Timemachine Road. These integrate neatly into the seat tube and down tube, and there’s even an add-on storage vessel in between the two (nestled above the bottom bracket) that has room for a spare tube, CO2 cartridge and inflator head, tire lever, and multi-tool.

BMC partnered directly with Elite to produce the Timemachine R01’s proprietary bottle and storage system. BMC says that the bike is actually more aerodynamic with all of the accessories fitted than without, and the components can be added or removed as desired – which is good since the storage vessel isn’t UCI-legal for mass-start events. For amateur riders, though, there’s enough room inside for a spare tube, CO2 cartridge and inflator head, tire lever, and multi-tool, and a custom-fitted soft case keeps everything from rattling.

All three of those bits can be added or subtracted as desired, but according to BMC, the new Timemachine Road tests faster with everything mounted than without. But there’s a catch.

That storage vessel isn’t UCI-legal, nor is the front brake caliper fairing. This is obviously only a concern for riders that plan on entering UCI-sanctioned events, though; otherwise, amateurs are free to enjoy the free speed as they please.

Several build options, but no cables allowed

BMC will offer the new Timemachine Road in three complete models. The top-end Timemachine Road R01 One comes equipped with Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 for US$13,000 / €12,000 / CHF12,500; the second-tier Timemachine Road 01 Two is fitted with SRAM’s Red eTap HRD groupset for US$11,000 / €10,000 / CHF10,500; and the Timemachine Road 01 Three is built with Shimano Ultegra Di2 for US$8,500 / €8,000 / CHF8,500.

62mm-deep DT Swiss ARC DiCut db 62 carbon clinchers are included for all three models (the 1100 model for the One; the heavier 1400 model for the Two and Three), and there will also be a bare frameset available for DIYers for US$5,500 / €4,200 / CHF5,700.

It’s worth noting that none of the options will be compatible with mechanical drivetrains; BMC clearly believes wholeheartedly in disc brakes, but also in electronic drivetrains, too. Pricing for the Australian market is still to be confirmed.

Swiss timekeeper

I will freely confess that aero road bikes historically have not really been my cup of tea. While I can fully appreciate that they’re highly engineered tools for the job, and as much as I like going fast, racing bikes isn’t my job (and nor is it the case for most people buying aero road bikes.) As a result I’ve often been unwilling to put up with their rough rides, dead feel, and excess weight to gain speed that I didn’t really need.

But as is the case with many modern examples of the genre these days, this new BMC Timemachine Road is making a much stronger case as an everyday road bike than before.

The BMC Timemachine R01 isn’t the absolute stiffest bike on the market, but it’s easily among the front-runners for the aero road category.

As it should, the Timemachine Road certainly feels fast, with its stout chassis efficiently channeling power to the rear wheel, the admirably solid front end doing a very good job of resisting any unwanted movement when sprinting out of the saddle, and that sleek shape making it tangibly easier to maintain a fast pace as compared to a non-aero bike. I unfortunately wasn’t able to grab an actual weight, but I found the Timemachine Road to be a surprisingly good climber nonetheless, too.

Also as expected, it’s a fairly agile handler. Despite what the trail figures would suggest, I didn’t find the Timemachine Road to fall into corner apexes quite as naturally as I would have hoped, but it snaked its way through fast and sinuous alpine descents and carved up tight corners regardless, albeit with a bit more handlebar input required than I’d prefer.

Those sorts of things should be minimum requirements for any competition-minded aero road bike, however.

What was far less expected was the Timemachine Road’s oddly smooth ride quality. Granted, Switzerland isn’t exactly known for its poor road quality — anything but, in fact — but every road seam, pothole, and broken section of asphalt I could find was managed far better than I anticipated. Even better, that smooth ride quality is pleasantly balanced from front to rear, unlike some competitors that feel more disjointed from end to end.

Graphics are pleasantly subdued and elegant, with just a few logos and a restrained graphic design.

Just as BMC promises, much of the bike’s front-end comfort seems to come from that flat, D-shaped stem, which visibly flexes when you push down on it, yet remains quite rigid when you’re cranking on the drops in a sprint. Just as with seatpost flex, though, some extra length helps, and one curious design decision unfortunately forces the matter upon you.

For whatever reason, BMC has chosen to fit the Timemachine Road’s proprietary ergonomic-bend, compact bar with a strangely short reach and shallow drop, which is exactly the opposite of what you’d think would be most appropriate for a bike like this. My 51cm test bike featured about the same amount of reach as I normally prefer on the road, but the stubby bar forced me to use a 130mm-long stem instead of my usual 120mm one.

My position isn’t unusually aggressive by any means, though, and as you’d guess, BMC’s team riders have to resort to far more extreme measures to get their desired fits. One of the pro chaperones for the longer of our two rides was Stefan Küng, whose shiny new Timemachine Road was fitted with a custom 160mm-long — 160mm! — stem that looked as insane as it sounds. For sure, this is something BMC will have to address for its sponsored athletes, but I’d argue that even for everyday enthusiasts, the stock handlebar bend just doesn’t make sense. And unfortunately, given the unusual 25mm bar clamp diameter, there aren’t any other options for the time being.

The 62mm-deep DT Swiss wheels make much more sense for a bike like this, but even then, I found myself frequently wishing my test sample was rolling along on something else. I’ve got plenty of experience on wheels of this depth, and am used to being blown around to a certain degree. But for whatever reason, these DT Swiss wheels were unusually sensitive to crosswinds, to the point where it just flat-out made me nervous on fast descents. Even the wake of smaller passing vehicles would upset the bike’s stability, and the turbulence from bigger trucks was downright pucker-inducing.

Each BMC Timemachine R01 will come stock with 25mm-wide tires, but 28mm-wide ones will easily fit, too.

Not that sudden gusts were necessary, either. I typically don’t have any issues letting bikes run on non-technical downhills, but the front end of the DT Swiss-equipped Timemachine Road felt sufficiently nervous above 65km/h that I was forced to regularly put those confidence-inspiring disc brakes to use. Other editors I spoke to at the event expressed similar feedback, and ones that switched to shallower profiles for the second day’s ride reported much calmer handling manners overall. This issue isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker for me, but if I were to pick up a Timemachine Road for myself, I’d certainly be starting with the frameset option and choosing wheels I know are more stable than these.

Aero or not, those custom bottle cages carry a few little quirks with them, too. BMC didn’t provide any official figures, but just given their bulk, my guess is they’re fairly heavy. More importantly, they don’t perform their core function very well. The bottles seem to be held securely enough, but it’s hard to grab them on the go. The cage’s more thoroughly wrapped shape doesn’t leave much bottle surface area for your hands, and given the option, I’d rather be hydrated and a touch slower than more aero and suffering from muscle cramps. It’ll be interesting to see what the BMC team goes with at the upcoming Tour de France.

Almost the complete package

There’s a lot I really like about BMC’s new aero road bike: the ride quality, the aesthetics, the thoroughness of its integration, how it generally feels on the ride. Overall, BMC has done an excellent job advancing the breed, and it’s a sufficiently entertaining and fast rig that I could certainly see myself enjoying a lot of time riding it on home roads.

However, that handlebar bend is a head-scratcher in my book, and as much as I like the idea of those profiled bottle cages, their ergonomics leave much to be desired. And those wheels? Sorry, DT Swiss, but they’re definitely not for me.

Click through to www.bmc-switzerland.com to read more.

BMC’s new Timemachine R01 is a major improvement over the original Timemachine Road, with a vastly smoother ride, better aerodynamic performance, and more integration.

Without a rim-brake caliper up top, BMC’s frame designers were free to clean up the fork crown area for better airflow. Note the complete absence of exposed cabling, too.

Cables and hoses don’t route through the dedicated stem, but are rather secured underneath and hidden with a bolt-on plastic cap. The flat shape is intentional, and makes the front end of the Timemachine R01 remarkably forgiving on rough roads, especially if running a longer extension.

BMC has done an excellent job with incorporating some adjustability into the Timemachine R01’s aero cockpit. The bar’s downsized 25mm clamp diameter allows for plenty of rotational range while still maintaining a very small frontal profile.

As with BMC’s other recent models, accessory mounts can be attached directly to the stem faceplate. This Wahoo Fitness-compatible computer mount isn’t one of the options directly available from BMC, but it shows how just about anything that uses the GoPro finned standard will work.

BMC has done a nice job of blending the shapes of the head tube, headset cover, headset spacers, and stem. Note how the spacers are split, too, so the stem can be raised and lowered without having to recable the entire bike.

Flat-mount brakes are clumsier to set up that post-mount ones, but as intended, they do make for a more compact and cleaner appearance. Mounting bolts are well hidden, too, and note that there’s no adapter plate required on the BMC Timemachine R01 when using the standard 140mm-diameter rear rotor, either.

BMC has added a small cover up front that helps divert air around the brake caliper for supposedly improved aerodynamic performance.

The cover isn’t UCI-approved, though, so riders in sanctioned events will have to use the alternative cover supplied in order to stay within the technical guidelines.

BMC provides a custom-fit soft case that keeps the contents from rattling. Inside, there’s enough room for a long-stem inner tube, CO2 cartridge and inflator, a tire lever, and a mini-tool.

Given the claimed benefit to aerodynamic performance provided by the custom-made Elite bottle cages, it’s a wonder no other bike brand has done this sort of thing before. According to BMC, the new Timemachine Road actually records less drag with the bottles and storage vessel in place than without, although it’s worth noting that the storage unit is not UCI-legal.

BMC will offer both standard and direct-mount rear derailleur hangers with the new Timemachine R01.

The Syntace-style 12mm thru-axles sit pleasantly flush for a clean look.

As further evidence of BMC’s intentions with the Timemachine R01 – or a sign of where things are headed – the frame is only compatible with electronic drivetrains.

The proprietary aero-profile carbon fiber seatpost has a three-position cradle for multiple offset options. The single-bolt head can’t be accessed with most multi-tools, although riders using cutout saddles may be able to replace with a hex-head bolt for easier roadside adjustments.

Small little “tails” on the trailing edge of the fork tips presumably reduce aerodynamic drag by some miniscule amount. Thru-axle threads are replaceable.

Shimano Di2 batteries are mounted into the base of the seatpost, which is filled with a structural foam.

The post BMC Timemachine R01 first-ride review: A well-rounded speedster appeared first on CyclingTips.

The Trek Madone SLR takes all that was good with the previous Madone and made the new bike markedly better in seemingly every way. It’s now offered in both disc-brake and rim-brake variants, it’s supposedly just as aerodynamic as before (in both versions), the ride quality is more balanced and composed, and it even looks better with a shape that’s clearly derived from the predecessor, but yet cleaner and more refined.

Is the new Madone SLR the best aero road bike on the market? That question is impossible to answer with putting every other competitor through an exhaustive battery of objective and subjective tests, like the new Specialized Venge, Cannondale SystemSix, Giant Propel, and BMC Timemachine Road. But Trek sure seems to have made it harder for anyone else to claim the crown.

A clever new IsoSpeed design and a more balanced feel

While much of the attention surrounding the new Madone SLR revolves around its newly available disc brakes, it’s the new IsoSpeed system that should really be generating all the buzz.

But first, a primer on IsoSpeed for those of you who might not be entirely familiar with it: Instead of molding the seat tube, seatstays, and top tube together in a single structural unit as is usually the case, Trek “decouples” the seat tube from the rest of the frame, connecting it only with a pivot axle and a set of cartridge bearings. In this way, the seat tube is able to flex much more than usual when riding over rough terrain, and there’s a very significant improvement in ride quality as a result.

Although it’s a big deal that the Madone is offered with disc brakes for the first time, what’s arguably the bigger story is the new IsoSpeed seatmast design, which is now not only adjustable, but offers a broader tuning range than the old seat tube-based design ever could.

Pivot or not, though, deep-section seat tubes like what you typically find in an aero road bike aren’t exactly conducive to bending, so on the previous Madone, Trek used a novel dual seat tube design, where the integrated seatmast stepped down to a much smaller section at the IsoSpeed pivot. That smaller-diameter tube was then inserted into the outer aero-section seat tube, and bonded at the base. It definitely worked, but it wasn’t without its issues.

For one, the softness of the system was inversely related to the length of the tube, which is exactly what you don’t want; smaller bikes are usually piloted by shorter and lighter riders, not heavier ones. And unlike Trek’s Domane SLR endurance road bike, the system on the previous Madone wasn’t adjustable. It’s also worth noting that from a manufacturing standpoint, the double nested seat tube design wasn’t exactly easy to make.

And so for this new Madone SLR, Trek has shifted to a new L-shaped design, with the spring portion of the IsoSpeed system residing beneath the top tube. Since there’s more length to work with here, smaller bikes can now be set up from the factory to ride softer than bigger ones as they should, and because the unit is also now externally accessible, Trek was also able to give it the same adjustable stiffness functionality as on the Domane SLR.

According to Trek, the ride quality of earlier IsoSpeed designs on the Madone and Domane was still linked to frame size – and not in the way you’d want, as smaller frames would feel stiffer than bigger ones. This new boomerang arrangement takes care of that, and it’s also (slightly) easier to manufacture.

According to Trek, that adjustment range is pretty generous, too. The frame is 17% softer in its softest setting than the old Madone’s fixed setting for a given size, but up to 21% stiffer for riders who want a firmer feel. To combat unwanted bounciness, there’s even a small elastomer-based friction damper hidden inside the seat tube to help control the motion while pedalling.

Another complaint on the old Madone was its somewhat disjointed ride: while the rear end stayed impressively planted on rough roads, the front end was comparatively harsh and unyielding. Trek hasn’t added the Front IsoSpeed device on the new Madone SLR like it did for the Domane SLR, but the new cockpit supposedly offers a little more flex nonetheless to help balance things out (more on that in a bit).

As on the current Trek Domane SLR, a small slider effectively adjusts the length – and, therefore, the stiffness – of the carbon fiber leaf spring.

Disc-brake and rim-brake variants

As expected, Trek’s new aero road flagship finally adds disc brakes to the options list, along with the usual flat-mount caliper interfaces and 12mm-diameter front and rear thru-axles. Despite the decidedly non-aero brake hardware, though, Trek says that the new disc-brake Madone SLR posts virtually the same drag figures in the wind tunnel as the previous rim-brake Madone — a claim that’s all the more impressive considering that the predecessor was already widely regarded (and proven in third-party testing) to be among the most aerodynamic bikes on the road.

Trek was once openly resistant to the idea of offering disc brakes on its flagship road racing lineup, but that’s clearly changed with this new Madone SLR.

Trek hasn’t abandoned rim brakes just yet, though.

Rim brakes will be available throughout the entire Madone SLR line, and they’ve undergone some significant refinements. The rear caliper is mildly reshaped, but still blended into the seatstays, but the front caliper is virtually complete redesign.

Whereas the previous Madone had the front brake mounted to the front of the fork, the new Madone SLR flips the script and places the caliper on the back of the fork. It’s still a symmetrical roller-cam arrangement like before, but now the cable passes directly through the base of the steerer tube, and the wedge-and-roller assembly is turned almost 90° to create a more compact package. The old “vector wings” — better known as the spring-loaded “flappy doors” — that were once required for sufficient steering range are gone. There’s now a stop hidden inside the upper headset assembly to keep the bars from slamming into the top tube during a crash.

Trek hasn’t given up on rim brakes for the new Madone SLR, and in fact, they’ve only been further refined. Mounting the front caliper on the backside of the fork instead of the front, and routing the cable through the crown, yields a cleaner final package that also no longer requires those novel spring-loaded doors of the previous Madone.

I didn’t have a chance to sample the new rim brakes, but it’s at least encouraging to see that they offer the same amount of easy adjustability as before, including left and right pad location, left and right arm angle, and left and right arm tension, all of which can be accessed through ports on the cosmetic caliper cover.

The switch to disc brakes carries an additional benefit, too: more tire clearance.

Officially, the maximum allowable tire size is 25mm for the rim-brake version, but 28mm for the disc-brake one. However, it’s worth noting that Trek’s internal guidelines for tire clearance are more conservative than typical, requiring no less than 6mm of space between the tire and the closest point on the frame or fork; 4mm is more common (and technically mandated for stock bikes), and some companies flout those guidelines altogether when making claims of what will fit.

As such, it seems safe to say that a 28mm-wide tire will comfortably fit in the rim-brake Madone SLR, and 30mm-wide ones will fit in the disc-brake version, which should provide more than enough cush for most paved roads.

One geometry to rule them all, but still plenty of fit options

Trek previously offered each Madone size in two fit variants: the slightly more upright H2 version that was aimed at everyday riders, and the more aggressive H1 fit with its substantially lower, and slightly longer, front end. Trek has now switched to a single geometry called H1.5 for the Madone SLR, however.

As the name suggests, the H1.5 fit splits the difference between H1 and H2. It’s about 1.5cm taller than the former and about 1cm lower than the latter. According to Trek, a new -12° stem option will still replicate that H1 fit for its sponsored pro athletes and anyone else that can comfortably ride in that sort of posture, while the standard -7° stem will still offer a sportier fit than the old H2.

Gone are the old H1 and H2 fit variants in favor of a single H1.5 version.

Like before, there is no women-specific frame. There will be women-specific models, but those will only differ from the unisex versions in terms of components, component sizes, and colors.

Speaking of components, Trek has supplied the Madone SLR with an all-new two-piece aero cockpit that replaces the previous one-piece design and finally allows users to fine-tune the bar angle (by up to +/-5°). The flattened tops are also now swept back slightly (for better ergonomics, according to Trek), and there’s more wrist clearance while in the drops than before as well.

Perhaps best of all, the new two-piece configuration not only allows for the slightly softer ride quality already mentioned but also offers a wider range of width and length combinations than before. Stem length options are again limited to 90, 100, 110, 120, and 130mm, but in addition to those two -7° and -12° angles, there are now four bar widths instead of three: 38, 40, 42, and 44cm. Changing either the stem length or bar width later on will obviously be less expensive now, too.

Just as aero, and nearly as light

Trek says that its goal for the new Madone SLR was to “maintain aerodynamic drag performance of the current Madone (within 30g) across an averaged -12.5° to 12.5° yaw sweep.” In the end, the company claims a 3,216g of measured drag with the disc-brake Madone SLR vs. 3,202g on the old Madone — supposedly within the margin of error for the well-known Low Speed Wind Tunnel facility in San Diego, California.

Frame weights have gone up, but only very slightly. According to Trek, the current 56cm Madone 9 frame comes in at 1,053g, plus 376g for the matching fork. Claimed weight for the new rim-brake Madone SLR frame and fork are 1,112g and 378g, respectively, while the disc-brake version is slightly heavier still at 1,131g and 421g. Even so, Trek says the complete bike weights are identical for the rim-brake version — 7.1kg (15.65lb) for a 56cm size, without pedals. Claimed weight for the disc-brake Madone SLR is expectedly heavier, at 7.5kg (16.53lb), but supposedly still within the design targets.

The previous Madone never seemed all that inelegant or clumsy, but it does now in comparison to the new version, which is notably cleaner and sleeker looking.

Truly stunning custom paint options with Project One ICON

Naturally, Trek will once again offer the Madone through its Project One custom program, and there are apparently a lot of people who choose to go that route. According to Trek, fully half of all current Madones sold are Project One variants.

Project One buyers will be able to choose components, component sizes, and paint as usual, but new this year is the Project One ICON paint program, which includes six pre-configured color and design schemes that are clearly above and beyond the usual offerings.

There’s little point in wasting words describing what the new Project One ICON paint options look like. Instead, it’s far better to just show them to you.

We’ve seen this sort of paint used on other brands (such as Masi, who calls it “unicorn blood”), but Trek’s Prismatic Pearl is no less striking.

Is it silver? Green? Orange? Purple? Yes.

The Project One ICON Refliptive finish is meant to recall the old Klein bikes of yesteryear.

The down tube logo is reflective on this one, though, which not only helps with nighttime visibility, but is also just plain cool.

The Trek logo is also pleasantly subdued on this one.

The Brushed Liquid Metal option is elegant and subtle.

From a distance, the Brushed Liquid Metal finish looks like just a plain silver paint job. But when you look closer, you can see the brush lines that are applied by hand to make the bike look like it’s made of metal.

The Brushed Liquid Metal finish really lets the shape of the Madone SLR frame speak for itself.

Holy green! The Candy Emerald Green finish is incredibly rich and deep.

Team riders will be on the Chrome Tour finish, which uses pearlescent white paint and red chrome logos.

The Black Gold option in Trek’s new Project One ICON custom paint program clearly isn’t for riders who want to fly under the radar. This is about as showy as it gets.

The bike is fairly subdued when it’s cloudy, but once the sunlight hits it, the gold really comes out.

Sampling the Madone SLR in cow town

Trek’s global headquarters of Waterloo, Wisconsin seems like an odd place to develop a world-class aero road bike like the new Madone SLR. There are seemingly more dairy cows here than people, no massive cols, and the rumbly pavement is poorly maintained. Winters here are long and punishing, and summer heat and humidity can sometimes make riding indoors in artificially cooled air oddly appealing.

Yet that environment still offers a surprisingly demanding setting. Harsh-riding bikes are downright punishing on the coarsely surfaced tarmac and annoyingly pronounced expansion joints, and mushy chassis bog down on the steep and punchy climbs that dot the dairy roads west of town, not to mention the unofficial sprint lines marked by the frequent town and county limit signs. The downhills may be short, but they’re similarly steep and fast, and coupled with the lumpy road surface, it’s easy to get in over your head.

The previous-generation model was widely regarded as a benchmark in the category, with independently verified best-in-class aerodynamic performance, a surprisingly accommodating ride quality thanks to Trek’s truly innovative IsoSpeed “decoupler” at the seat cluster, and one of the most highly integrated designs in the industry.

So is the new version really better? Actually, yes, it is.

The “Blue Mounds” area of Wisconsin is known for its wealth of paved roads, and general absence of traffic. The roads aren’t always the smoothest, however, which also makes them a good proving ground for a bike’s ride quality. Photo: Jeff Kenner / Trek Bicycle Corporation.

First and foremost, the improvement in ride quality is striking. The new IsoSpeed design is unquestionably smoother than the old one, but I didn’t notice a hint of bounciness in the saddle even with the IsoSpeed slider set in “full party mode.” Even better is the more controlled ride up front, which is less chattery and punishing than the one one-piece cockpit. It’s still nowhere near as pillowy as what the IsoSpeed offers out back, but it nevertheless makes for a more balanced feel front-to-back and a more planted sensation in general.

Remember what I said about those dairy roads being a little coarse and occasionally steep? One descent there dropped a paltry 70m (230ft) in elevation, and yet I still easily topped 80km/h (50mph) on the way down. Thankfully, the new Madone SLR felt perfectly at home in that moment, with neither the twisty corners nor the less-than-ideal pavement doing much of anything to upset its composure.

Those twisty corners also only served to confirm another of my favorite traits about the Madone: its impeccable handling. High-speed stability is truly confidence-inspiring, but yet it’s still plenty eager to change direction when necessary, and with little more than a subtle lean required to initiate the turn. Aside from the difference in head tube length, Trek changed nothing about the Madone’s frame geometry, and in this case, that’s a very good thing.

A bike with tubes this deep shouldn’t ride anywhere near as comfortably as the new Trek Madone SLR does on the road.

Bottom bracket stiffness feel about on-par with the old model, which is to say it’s very good and amply efficient. Front-triangle torsional stiffness seems to have improved slightly, though, which is a welcome change seeing as how I found the previous Madone to be a bit lacking in that regard.

Speaking of bottom brackets, Trek is soldiering on with its proprietary BB90 press-fit design. I didn’t experience any creaking either during my initial test ride in Wisconsin, or subsequent rides back on local roads in Colorado, but it’s still only been a few days so far. Even given the weight penalty, I still wish Trek had switched to a wide-format shell with more robust bearing options, such as PF86, T47, or even BB386EVO. But such is life.

I have no complaints so far about the new cockpit, however. The sweptback tops indeed feel more natural to hold (although I’d still prefer they were taped from the factory), and the additional wrist clearance while in the drops is most welcome.

Going along with the new frame design is an all-new aero carbon cockpit, whose two-piece configuration now finally allows for some bar angle adjustment.

But is the Madone SLR fast? And is it light? I can only objectively confirm the latter, as my 52cm sample weighed 7.70kg (16.98lb) without pedals, but with cages — not far off from the claimed figures, but still within the ballpark given the thick coats of paint (and paint is surprisingly heavy). As for speed, well, it certainly seems easier to maintain high speeds on the Madone SLR, which suggests that it’s just as aerodynamically slick as before.

However, what I found more interesting was the fact that I stopped thinking about it being a good aero road bike, and more about how it was a good road bike, period: capable, composed, planted, responsive. Those are all traits I value for any road bike, and the fact that companies have finally figured out how to make everything converge into a single machine that also happens to be aerodynamic is something that is long overdue.

Welcome to the new reality.

www.trekbikes.com

Never has the aero road bike category been so hotly conteested with bikes that are not only fast, but far more usable for everyday riding than they used to be. The latest Madone is supposedly as speedy as the previous one in terms of aerodynamics, but also more comfortable.

Trek clearly isn’t shy about the logo on the new Madone.

With the UCI now finally making disc brakes fully legal, it’s now likely just a matter of time before they become the norm, rather than the exception.

Rather than try to completely hide the new IsoSpeed structure into the frame, Trek actually highlights it as part of the new bike’s design.

The slider can’t be adjusted on the fly, but changing the ride stiffness only requires loosening a single bolt.

cle

This latest evolution of Trek’s fantastic IsoSpeed concept truly does deliver a smoother ride than previous Madones – or a stiffer one, should you so desire. The company says the tuning range should satisfy just about every preference.

The previous Trek Madone uses a complex dual seat tube design to accommodate the IsoSpeed functionality.

To minimize bouncing, there’s now a small eleastomeric friction damper built into the base of the pivot assembly.

The new Madone SLR may be slightly less complex to manufacture than before, but there’s still a lot more going on here relative to a conventional modular monocoque carbon fiber road frame.

One can only wonder how soon the new IsoSpeed design will find its way into Trek’s other road bike lines.

A pass-through is built into the boomerang to accommodate rim-brake bikes.

When all of the cosmetic covers are in place, the new seat cluster actually looks quite tidy.

Seat height adjustments are now performed with a 5mm hex wrench, which secures an internal wedge. I would have liked to see a snap-on rubber cover here, though.

As with Trek”s earlier no-cut seatmast designs, this one eliminates some of the hassles of truly integrated seatposts. And if you were really pressed for space inside a travel case, for example, you could theoretically remove the IsoSpeed boomerang altogether.

The handlebar clamp itself is aluminum, but there’s a cosmetic carbon composite cap bonded on to the top of it.

At least for now, Trek is only offering its popular VR bend for the Madone cockpit.

As before, the headset spacers are profiled to match, and are split so they can be added and removed without having to recable the entire bike.

The front of the cockpit once again includes an integrated mount for computers, lights, and cameras. Bontrager offers a number of Blendr accessories already, but anything based on the GoPro mounting standard will work. The single-mount plate is shown here, but there’s also a double plate if you want to run a computer and a light, for example.

The new bar features swept-back tops, which Trek claims are more ergonomic than the straight tops used on the previous Madone.

Trek has enlarged the openings on the underside of the stem to help ease the build process (a little).

Bar angle adjustment is physically limited to +/-5°.

The unique steerer tube shape has two flattened sides along with a central channel to accommodate derailleur and brake housings as necessary.

Trek did a great job with the previous Madone, but clearly it wasn’t good enough. Every note shown here represents some type of improvement identified internally by Trek.

Trek showed this concept a few years ago, and it’s interesting to see how similar the new Madone SLR is in terms of styling.

This is just a computer rendering, but essentially identical to the real thing. It looks better in person.

One thing is for sure: the new Trek Madone SLR is about as far from traditional in appearance as you can get while still satisfying UCI guidelines.

Is the new Trek Madone SLR fast? It sure sems that way. But is it subtle? Not exactly.

Even given the complexity of the new IsoSpeed design, Trek has still managed to build an admirably sleek and modern-looking structure around it.

At the rate aero road bikes are progressing in terms of traditional performance metrics like ride quality, weight, and stiffness, one can only wonder how soon they’ll outnumber round-tubed machines.

The frontal profile of the new Trek Madone SLR is particularly svelte, and made even more so by the omission of the rim brakes (and the associated flappy doors of the old version).

Gorgeous.

Trek supposedly designed the new Madone with water bottles in mind, although it’s hard to see how that would be given this sharp leading edge on the seat tube.

The straight break between the two colors on my test sample makes for a simple, yet impactful, look.

Trek uses its top-end 700-series OCLV carbon fiber blend for its flagship road racer, although it’s worth noting that the company quietly shut down its US production within the last couple of years. Every Trek bike is now made overseas.

The chainstays only look relatively slim in comparison to the monstrous down tube. It’s only when you compare them to the crankarm that you get a better sense of their height.

The chainstays are highly asymmetrical, too. And these 25c tires have an actual measurement of around 26.5mm on the wide Bontrager Aeolus XXX rims, so you can see how conservative Trek is being with its 28mm maximium official tire size.

The new front brake caliper operates on the same basic wedge-type design as the old one, but the wedge and rollers are not basically turned almost 90 degrees to make the package more compact.

There are still independent adjustments for pad position, arm position, and spring tension like on the previous Madone.

On rim-brake bikes, the front brake housing stop is built directly into the pass-through at the base of the steerer tube.

The new rear brake has slightly different shaping than the old one, but is basically the same in terms of function.

Shimano’s new handlebar-mounted Di2 interface has been very popular. No longer is it hidden away inside the down tube like on the previous Madone.

To help prevent frame damage in a crash, there’s a stop built into the headset assembly that limits how far the bars can be turned.

The latest Madone is once again compatible with Bontrager’s DuoTrap S wireless speed and cadence sensor.

Can’t stand Trek’s proprietary BB90 press-fit bottom bracket design? Sorry, folks, it’s still here.

The seatmast head is simple to adjust, with separate clamps for tilt and fore-aft position.

Hoses and wires are only very briefly visible on the new Trek Madone SLR.

Trek’s latest Madone SLR features a new chain catcher design, too, which is now adjustable from the top.

Cable guides for bikes with mechanical drivetrains are molded directly into the shell. Cable liners are definitely required.

The new Madone SLR will actually have two options for cleanly mounting rear lights. One attaches to the seatmast binder bolt hardware while the other one clips directly to the back of the seatmast head.

The Shimano Di2 battery and junction box are secured to the backside of this plate on the down tube, which also secures the rear brake hose to help keep it from rattling.

Where does the Madone go from here? We’ll have to wait a few years to see.

Trek is offering the new Madone SLR in a variety of complete builds, but says a surprising percentage of buyers just go through the Project One custom program instead.

The Trek Madone SLR 6 and SLR 6 Disc will be the least expensive on the inline Madone models, built with Shimano Ultegra mechanical drivetrains.

Trek will offer the women-specific version of the Madone SLR 6 Disc in a wide array of colors. The frameset is identical to the unisex version, but touch points are altered to supposedly provide a better fit.

The Trek Madone SLR 7 Disc WSD moves up to Shimano’s Ultegra Di2 groupset.

The unisex Trek Madone SLR 7 Disc is much the same as the women-specific version, save for a few minor component changes (and different color options).

Feeling a little more flush with cash, but still want to stick with a non-powered drivetrain? Trek answers the call with the Madone SLR 8 Disc, which is built with Shimano’s latest Dura-Ace mechanical groupset.

The Madone SLR 8 is possibly the lightest of the new Madone SLR options, featuring rim brakes and a Shimano Dura-Ace mechanical groupset.

The flagship model is the Madone SLR 9 Disc, built with either Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 or SRAM Red eTap, and Bontrager Aeolus XXX 6 carbon clinchers.

And finally, there’s the Madone SLR 9, offering rim brakes and Shimano’s Dura-Ace Di2 electronic drivetrain.

The post 2019 Trek Madone SLR first-ride review: Upping the ante appeared first on CyclingTips.

Shimano’s single-sided PD-A600 SPD road pedal isn’t new; far from it, in fact. First introduced in 2010, it was originally billed as an Ultegra-level alternative for roadies who wanted the stability of a traditional three-bolt system but the walking convenience of a recessed two-bolt cleat.

Roadies are a finicky bunch, however, and so the A600 has only been modestly successful from a commercial standpoint. Shimano hasn’t even bothered to update it since it debuted eight years ago. However, the rise of gravel riding has brought the idea back to the forefront since two-bolt pedals and walkable shoes are much friendlier in that environment than any of the usual road options.

In that context, the Shimano A600 offers a tough-to-beat package that combines a sleek appearance, relatively low weight, outstanding bearing durability, and a very approachable price point.

One of the biggest motivations for sticking with a traditional three-bolt road pedal system is the larger contact surface area it provides. Under harder pedaling efforts — and especially on longer rides — this helps distribute the load over a greater portion of the shoe (and thus, your foot) for greater comfort as the kilometers tick away.

Wider platforms also help stabilize your feet to keep them from rocking out of plane, which not only helps with power transfer, but can potentially alleviate joint stress for riders that are more sensitive to that sort of thing.

Shimano’s PD-A600 SPD road pedals have never managed to be much more than a niche product, but the rise in gravel riding is making them more relevant than ever.

The A600’s standard Shimano SPD SH-51 cleat is positively tiny as compared to the road variants from Shimano, Look, or Time, though (and even Speedplay’s lollipop-like design has more cleat-to-pedal contact area than this). As a result, one might assume that the A600 would feel like a wobbly mess. However, Shimano gets around this by instead supporting the tread blocks on shoes with recessed two-bolt cleat pockets.

Taking that into account, the A600’s support platform is actually fairly wide. The four degrees of free float also feels rather, well, free — not quite as silky-smooth as a set of fresh and clean road pedals and cleats, mind you, but not too far off, either.

Granted, there are caveats. That stability and rotation performance are heavily dependent on how well the shoes interface with the pedal, and perhaps not surprisingly, shoes designed for cross-country MTB racing work best in that situation given they’re usually made with fairly hard tread blocks and stiff carbon fiber soles that provide added support.

The Shimano PD-A600 pedals offer excellent support and stability when paired with the right shoes, but it’s not hard to see how things can be less-than-optimal otherwise. The quality of the interface will also degrade over time as the shoe lugs – and the pedal body itself – wear.

The A600s also provide a reassuringly secure hold, they’re as easy to engage as conventional road pedals since the body always hangs at the right angle, there’s ample tangible and audible feedback from the entry and release, and there’s a good range of tension adjustment on tap as well.

Truth be told, I’ll put my hand up as one of those roadie snobs who once wouldn’t be caught dead in treaded shoes on a proper road ride. But in all honesty, the difference in performance between these A600 pedals and good XC race shoes, and dedicated road shoes and pedals, was impressively subtle in my six months comparing the two setups.

Even better, the cartridge-style axle assembly is well sealed and very easy to service, with proper steel ball bearings throughout instead of plastic bushings that will wear out over time. The forged aluminum bodies have proven impressively tough, too. Whereas some carbon fiber or plastic pedal bodies would explode on even moderate impacts, these A600s have shrugged off a number of direct rock strikes.

The cartridge-style axle assembly is widely used in Shimano’s pedal range, and offers well-proven durability. When needed, it’s also very easy to service.

The A600 pedals even manage to impress on the scales. Actual weight for a pair is just 292g, plus another 51g for the cleats. For comparison, a set of current Shimano Dura-Ace R9100 pedals and cleats weighs in at 305g — a saving of just 38g with a huge increase in cost.

Granted, that doesn’t take into account the fact that treaded shoes are also heavier than road-specific ones, so the effective difference is larger. Taking the Specialized S-Works 6 road shoes vs. the S-Works 6 XC MTB shoes, for example, you’re looking at another 126g, for a more significant total gain of 164g. But if you were to instead compare the A600s to more budget-minded road pedals, it’s almost a wash.

There are other downsides to note, too.

As with every road pedal (Speedplay excluded), the A600’s single-sided format is trickier to get going from stoplights and on sketchy terrain than dual-sided designs, and unlike some of Shimano’s earlier attempts at roadie-friendly, single-sided SPD pedals, this is a true single-sided design with a rounded undercarriage that feels unquestionably sketchy if you try to stand on it. And while the A600’s alloy construction is enviably tough, it doesn’t take long before the shiny dark painted surface — it’s not anodized, sadly — starts looking beat up.

Road pedal performance is often heavily influenced by the the shape and amount of contact between the cleat and pedal. The cleat on the Shimano PD-A600 pedals is miniscule, but the wide pedal helps make up for that by supporting the lugs of properly chosen shoes.

It’s also a little disappointing that, unlike on Shimano’s more recent upper-end pedals, the A600 does without stainless steel wear plates on the platform; the shoe tread instead sits directly on the painted aluminum surface. That will wear over time, degrading the quality of the pedal-to-shoe fit (and, subsequently, the stability of the system). The fit quality will also degrade as the shoe tread wears. My advice would be to choose your shoes wisely — look for harder-durometer rubber around the cleat pocket — and then tread lightly.

But why even bother with a single-sided SPD pedal, anyway? Good question.

Providing a platform this wide in a dual-sided pedal would not only make for a lot of aluminum (which would make the pedals heavy), but also adversely affect pedal clearance through corners. Getting a set of dual-sided SPD-type pedals this light would also mean spending a lot more money. Whereas retail price for a pair of A600s is just US$110 (and the street price is much lower), only Shimano’s XTR Race pedals are similarly svelte, and those retail for US$180. Sure, lighter dual-sided MTB pedals exist outside of the Shimano catalog, but few offer the same combination of pedal body and proven durability. Replacement cleats are dirt cheap, too, and they’re infrequently needed, anyway.

So what do we have here in total with the humble Shimano PD-A600 pedals? Good performance, sleek looks, outstanding durability and toughness, and a low price to boot. Sign me up.

www.shimano.com

Shimano first introduced its SPD two-bolt pedal retention system way back in 1990 with the original PD-M737 mountain bike pedal. Although the design has evolved since then, its basic interface is much the same as it once was.

Dual-sided pedals certainly offer more convenience, but the single-sided format allows for a wider platform, better cornering, less weight, and lower cost.

While it may not seem like it at first glance, the platform width of the Shimano PD-A600 is actually better than many dedicated road systems out there. There isn’t much support lengthwise, though, so it’s still important to pair these pedals with stiff carbon-soled shoes.

The open architecture allows the system to still be fully functional when caked with mud, snow, and debris, which definitely isn’t the case with traditional road pedal systems.

The rounded underside looks sleek, but it makes for a sketchy surface to stand on if you try to rush away from a stoplight without being properly clipped in.

The SH-51 cleats are not only easy to find, but also cheap and supremely hard-wearing.

The post Shimano PD-A600 pedal review: Single-sided gravel goodness appeared first on CyclingTips.

It wasn’t all that long ago that aluminum was considered largely obsolete as a frame material: too soft and heavy relative to carbon fiber, not as much zing or “life” as steel or titanium. But the material is nevertheless enjoying a strong resurgence, and Trek is the latest major brand to add fuel to that fire. The new Emonda ALR aluminum road family is reasonably competitive with carbon fiber in terms of weight and stiffness, and new manufacturing methods make it drop-dead gorgeous, too. It’s also comparatively cheap. But alas, there’s still a price to be paid.

The Emonda ALR by the numbers

On paper, it’s hard to argue with Trek’s new Emonda ALR.

At least as far as the scale is concerned, the Emonda ALR is nearly on-par with the carbon fiber Emonda SL. Claimed frame weight for the disc-brake is 1,131g, and 1,112g for the rim-brake edition — just 40g heavier than its fancier (and more expensive) cousin. And according to Trek, the Emonda ALR’s chassis stiffness figures aren’t far behind, either, thanks in no small part to the fact that its 300-Series Alpha Aluminum hydroformed tubes use nearly the same shapes as the upper-end Emondas.

The top tube gets notably wider and more rectangular up at the head tube. Torsional stiffness of the frame is very good.

Both rim-brake and disc-brake versions are on tap — naturally — and tire clearances are in-keeping with trends in the road space. Maximum official tire size on the rim-brake version is 25mm; 28mm for the disc-brake models. That sounds decidedly behind the times at first, yes, but keep in mind that Trek’s internal rating for maximum tire size is unusually conservative. Whereas most companies abide by international standards for clearance (at least 4mm of space on all sides of the tire at the closest point), Trek adds another 2mm on top of that, so comparing apples to apples, the rim-brake Emonda ALR will comfortably handle 29mm-wide tires, and the disc-brake bikes will fit 32mm-wide ones. Much better.

Handling-wise, Trek has carried over the same frame geometry as on the carbon Emonda models, which, in turn, were derived from the highly evolved figures of the long-standing Madone range. In other words, it promises truly neutral characteristics, with stable manners at high speeds, a seemingly contradictory willingness to carve through sinuous descents, and reasonable agility at low speeds without having the front end feel too floppy. Trek hasn’t changed its bread-and-butter road geometry much in ages, and that’s a good thing.

In terms of rider positioning, though, Trek will only offer the Emonda ALR in the tamer H2 fit with its slightly taller head tube. Riders who are specifically after a more aggressive posture will still need to look at the top-end Emonda SLR range.

Trek conservatively claims that the disc-brake Emonda ALR will fit tires up to 28mm-wide; the rim-brake one will only go up to 25mm. But if you go by how most other companies measure, you can tack another 2-3mm on top of those figures.

Other features include partially internal cable routing (just through the down tube), 12mm front and rear thru-axles and flat-mount caliper interfaces on disc-brake models, quick-release dropouts and direct-mount caliper mounts on rim-brake models, PF86 press-fit bottom bracket shells across the board, tapered steerer tubes on the full-carbon forks, standard 27.2mm-diameter round seatposts with conventional external seatpost clamps, and a small pocket built into the non-driveside chainstay for Bontrager’s DuoTrap wireless speed and cadence sensor.

None of this sounds remotely groundbreaking. And the focus on stiffness-to-weight means there isn’t a smidgeon of aerodynamic shaping to be found here. There’s not a single mention of wind tunnels or grams of drag or yaw angles in any of Trek’s marketing collateral. In an ever-expanding world of sleek two-wheeled machines that are starting to look more like airplanes than bicycles, the Emonda ALR might seem like a throwback.

But oh, man, you just have to see the thing.

Invisible Weld Technology

The way aluminum bicycle frames are welded hasn’t changed much in decades. With few exceptions, tubes are mitered at the joints and held together in a jig for a close fit, and then the intersections are basically just melted together at high heat, with an additional bead of similar material — the weld bead — added on top for additional structural reinforcement. Sometimes welders take two passes over the joint, and sometimes it’s just one, and sometimes the bead is filed down for a smoother look. But by and large, the process is the same today as it was when people thought Jeff Bezos was nuts for thinking he could sell books over the internet.

Specialized legitimately moved things forward a few years ago with the introduction of Smartweld. Normally, those mitered aluminum tubes fit together kind of like how you would join empty rolls of paper towels together in a grade school art project, with the end of one tube carved out to fit tightly against the unaltered wall of the other tube.

Trek’s new welding process is similar to Specialized’s SmartWeld concept, and offers similar claimed benefits, such as improved joint strength and reduced chassis weight. From most angles, it’s difficult to tell that this is a metal frame. The lustrous paint only further helps to disguise the weld beads.

But Smartweld is more like holding the bottom of two soda cans against each other. There’s a natural trough that the welding rod can fill, there’s more surface area to join together for better structural integrity, the weld itself is moved away from the areas of highest stress, the adjoining tube walls can be made thinner and lighter, and the resulting joint ends up more flush with the surrounding tube wall for a smoother finish. There’s more hydroforming work required to initially create that sort of interface geometry on the individual parts, but it’s a brilliant idea that Specialized has used to great effect.

Trek is now doing something similar, calling it “Invisible Weld Technology.” The concept is much the same, at least in terms of the weld joint geometry itself, but whereas Specialized moves the weld further up on the tubes, IWT uses the same weld location as a standard mitered joint.

Details aside, the result is visually stunning. For example, Trek has formed the head tube and top tube of the new Emonda ALR with the same shapes as the carbon fiber Emonda SL and SLR, and unless you look very closely, you can’t even tell where one part ends and the other begins; it’s truly seamless as far as your eyes are concerned.

Up front is a full-carbon fork. According to Trek, the total frameset weight for the new Emonda ALR aluminum model is nearly identical to the Emonda SL mid-range carbon chassis.

Other areas of the frame are joined using more conventional welding techniques, and the Emonda’s press-fit bottom bracket shell is a far cry from the bulbous and hollow two-piece clamshell that Specialized uses on the Allez Sprint. But it’s important to note that Trek is just getting started with the IWT concept, and it’ll be very interesting to see where it goes from here.

Off-the-shelf, or build to suit

As good as the Emonda ALR platform sounds, Trek clearly isn’t interested in having it cannibalize sales from the carbon fiber Emonda families based on the build kits on tap. Just five complete models are available, all of which focus more on value than outright performance. Complete Shimano groupsets are featured throughout, along with hydraulic brakes for all disc-equipped models. The one exception are the Tektro brake calipers on lower-end rim-brake models, since Shimano doesn’t make a direct-mount caliper at that price point.

At the lower end are the Emonda ALR 4 and ALR 4 Disc, built with Shimano Tiagra and Bontrager Affinity TLR tubeless-ready aluminum clinchers. The rim-brake version costs US$1,360 / AU$1,500, and the disc-brake version (which won’t be brought into Australia) costs US$1,680.

At the upper end are the Emonda ALR 5 and ALR 5 Disc, built with the same Bontrager Affinity TLR tubeless-ready aluminum wheels, but with Shimano’s 105 groupset. Retail price for the rim-brake version is US$1,580 / AU$2,000, or US$1,890 / AU$2,400 for the disc-brake version.

There will also be a sole women-specific model, the Emonda ALR 5 Disc Women’s. Basic spec is unchanged, and it’s built with the same frameset, but touch points are altered to promote a better fit and feel. Pricing is the same as the standard Emonda ALR 5 Disc, but like the Emonda ALR 4 Disc, Trek doesn’t plan to sell it in Australia.

Trek still isn’t ignoring the performance potential of the Emonda ALR, either; there’s also a bare frameset available for riders that might want to do a higher-end build. Retail price is US$960 for either the rim-brake or disc-brake version, but neither will be imported into Australia.

Pricing and availability for other regions is still to be confirmed.

The entry-level Trek Emonda ALR 4 is reasonably priced with its Shimano Tiagra groupset and Bontrager Affiinity TLR aluminum wheels. Photo: Trek Bicycle Corporation.

Kudos to Trek for featuring hydraulic disc brakes even on the entry-level Emonda ALR 4 Disc. Photo: Trek Bicycle Corporation.

The Trek Emonda ALR 5 looks to be a pretty good value in a mid-range aluminum road bike. Photo: Trek Bicycle Corporation.

The new Shimano 105 hydraulic disc levers on the Trek Emonda ALR 5 Disc are a huge improvement over the previous version. Photo: Trek Bicycle Corporation.

Just one women-specific Emonda ALR is featured in the lineup. Spec is identical to the standard Emonda ALR 5, but the Emonda ALR 5 WSD will come with different touch points for a better fit and feel. Photo: Trek Bicycle Corporation.

Trek will also offer the Emonda ALR in bare framesets, depending on region. Photo: Trek Bicycle Corporation.

Trek will offer the Emonda ALR Disc frameset in more sedate colors than this one, but this option is definitely the looker of the bunch. Photo: Trek Bicycle Corporation.

Bones, shaken

I rode a custom-built Emonda ALR for several hours on the roads surrounding Trek’s global headquarters in Waterloo, Wisconsin, where the rolling hills and seemingly endless expanse of sparsely populated roads provide plenty of opportunity to test a bike’s mettle. Rather than set us up on stock models, Trek went the DIY route, outfitting the frames with Shimano’s latest Ultegra mechanical groupset, low-profile Bontrager Aeolus XXX 2 carbon clinchers, 25mm-wide Bontrager R3 tubeless tires, and an assortment of Bontrager carbon fiber finishing kit. Total weight for my 52cm sample was just 7.4kg (16.31lb), without pedals, but with bottle cages and Blendr accessory mounts.

True to claims, the Emonda ALR felt satisfyingly stout under power, and plenty eager to squirt up short and punchy climbs. Front-end torsional rigidity is good, too, although not quite on-par with top-end carbon models, with some flex detected when you’re really wrenching on the bars.

The new Trek Emonda ALR is the most advanced aluminum road frame yet to come out of the Wisconsin brand – and furthers the argument that modern aluminum bikes can still compete with carbon fiber ones in many ways.

As expected, handling is picture-perfect, like a well-trained horse that almost doesn’t require any physical input from its rider before doing exactly what you want it to. Set those numbers in stone, Trek.

But as pleasant as Trek’s home roads are, the asphalt is distinctly coarse and lumpy, and the pavement seams impossible to ignore. Trek has successfully showcased other bikes on this stage before, but for the Emonda ALR, it might have been better to choose somewhere with better-quality roads.

The Emonda ALR seems to put up a good fight against more expensive carbon bikes in terms of weight and stiffness, however it’s simply no match in terms of ride comfort. Even with the tires inflated to a modest 70psi or so under my 70kg body, the Emonda ALR offers a rough ride, with little vibration damping to speak of and plenty of impact harshness traveling up through the handlebar and saddle. If anything, it only highlights further the uncanny comfort of the new Madone.

The chainstays don’t appear to be particularly large in width or height, but the back end of the new Emonda ALR still feels plenty stiff. Perhaps too stiff, in fact.

That firm ride will certainly be viewed differently by different riders, and it’s important to note that frame compliance varies proportionally with frame size (and remember that I’m 1.73m tall, weigh 70kg, and ride a relatively small 52cm). Would a heavier and/or taller rider have a different experience? Maybe. But again, stiffness and weight still seem to me to have been the primary design objectives here, and frame compliance strikes me as falling further down on the list. Granted, switching to a more flexible seatpost and tires with more suppleness than the rather stiff-bodied Bontrager R3s of my test bike help, but there are limits to how much you can mask the inherent characteristics of a frameset. As is, the Emonda ALR wouldn’t be my first choice for a long day in the saddle on less-than-ideal road surfaces.

This isn’t to say that I wasn’t impressed with the Emonda ALR overall. I’m a big fan of aluminum bikes in general, and I’m definitely excited to see Trek (and others) devoting more attention to the genre. The Emonda ALR is light and stiff, and an unquestionably good value from a mainstream brand. Privateer racers will unquestionably find much to like here, as will anyone prioritizing stiffness and low weight, and living in areas with good-quality roads.

But just as perpetual motion machines, fountains of youth, and fusion reactors are still the stuff of folklore, the Emonda ALR isn’t quite a tale of getting true carbon fiber performance at aluminum pricing. If you enter into the arrangement with realistic expectations of what you might be getting, you’ll probably be happy with it. And as always, a test ride is probably a good idea before signing on the dotted line.

As much as some of us might like to believe otherwise, material properties are what they are, and as good as the Emonda ALR is, you still don’t get something for nothing.

www.trekbikes.com

Although impressively light and efficient, one area the Emonda ALR falls distinctly short on its carbon fiber peers is ride quality. If you run over a paper clip on the road, rest assured that you’ll feel it.

Is this paint job blue or purple? That depends on where you’re standing. This particular color-shifting finish is only available in bare Emonda ALR framesets, and harkens back to the old Klein brand that Trek purchased back in the 1990s. It’s utterly gorgeous.

Trek foregoes its usual BB90 press-fit bottom bracket format in favor of the more common PF86 setup that’s more amenable to metal frames like the Emonda ALR. While some will undoubtedly be disappointed that Trek didn’t use a standard threaded shell here, keep in mind that that would have made impossible to push the chainstays as far as they are here, along with the added tire clearance they allow.

The 27.2mm-diameter seatpost and skinny seatstays suggest a smooth ride, however the Emonda ALR is anything but.

Tube profiles are borrowed from the Emonda SLR wherever possible.

Not surprisingly, the new Trek Emonda ALR is a pretty darn good value. Bare framesets will go for a very reasonable figure, and will invariably be popular with privateer racers.

The forged dropouts are sleek and tiny.

The non-driveside chainstay features a small pocket for Bontrager’s DuoTrap wireless speed and cadence sensor.

Cable routing is internal through the down tube. All of the lines hug the frame nicely for a tidy appearance, but there will be lots of paint scuffing unless owners are careful to apply some clear protective vinyl tape.

Cables exit just ahead of the bottom bracket. Given the short path through the down tube, I’m not sure why Trek even bothered. The end result looks a bit tidier than it would with external routing, but this seems to really complicate maintenance with minimal aesthetic benefit.

One of the most common contamination points for a mechanical transmission is the rearmost loop of derailleur housing. On the Trek Emonda ALR, the loop is still as exposed as ever since the cable doesn’t run through the chainstay as would be the case with many carbon fiber frames.

The down tube sports a very subtle curve as it travels between the head tube and bottom bracket shell.

The rear flat-mount brake interface is built directly into the rear dropout.

The round 27.2mm-diameter seatpost is secured with a conventional external clamp.

The top-end complete Emonda ALR is fitted with Shimano 105 so as to minimize overlap with upper-end carbon Emonda SL and SLR models. But the performance of the chassis warrants a higher-end build, which Trek thankfully makes possible with the bare frameset option.

Trek clearly isn’t yet on-board with the idea of 1x road drivetrains. The Emonda ALR’s front derailleur mount is permanently riveted to the seat tube.

It’s not a surprise to see that Trek manufactures the Emonda ALR in China. More surprising, however, is the fact that Trek has quietly moved all of its frame production overseas in recent years.

The post Trek Emonda ALR first-ride review: Light and fast, but best on smooth roads appeared first on CyclingTips.

Take a stroll through the pits of any professional road race and you’ll only see mechanics working with cradle-type repair stands. These stands differ from those with a tube clamp commonly found in bike shops in that they support the bike from beneath, and the only part of the bike that is clamped are the wheel dropouts. Along with offering a more stable and arguably safer hold of the bike, race repair stands are built to allow 360-degree access to the bike without having to move and are better suited to tight spaces.

Market leader Park Tool recently updated its Team Issue repair stand, an item you’ll see the likes of BMC, Sunweb and Katusha using, and one we were interested in knowing more about. How good is this stand, and does it make sense for the home user? CyclingTips’ Australian tech writer Dave Rome has been putting this stand (and the previous iteration) through its paces.

Starting from the base, the PRS-22.2 uses a wide-legged folding tripod design. In the case of this light 5.51kg stand, the uniquely hexagonal-shaped legs are made of thin-walled aluminium coated in Park’s recognisable blue.

The legs surround an aluminium center tube, which holds the stand’s main beam, another piece of anodised aluminium. It’s this 82cm long beam that shows the biggest changes from Park’s previous generation, the PRS-21. It’s now wider with a more versatile system of clamps for frame and fork dropouts that can be easily adjusted to suit a range of wheelbases and bottom bracket shapes.

Without question, the closest competitor for this stand is the Feedback Sports Sprint from the ‘other’ American company with a strong following in the workstand market. These two stands are quite similar, and it could be argued that the Park borrows a number of design cues from Feedback. At US$270/AUD$410/£300, the Feedback stand is cheaper than the PRS-22.2, which sells for US$340/AUD$550/£300, but it is a more basic offering. In both cases, carry bags for the stands are sold separately.

Folding into use

Fully folded, the PRS-22.2 is 82cm tall (the length of the main beam) and about 17cm in diameter. It’s Park’s most compact and lightest stand to date.

To unfold, you start by loosening a small knob to allow the legs to span out. These don’t extend under their own weight, and so you’ll likely need to pull opposing legs.

Once the stand is on its own three feet, it’s time to set up the beam via the quick release lever. It’s perhaps the one part of the stand I’m least fond of as it can be a fiddle. Here, the quick release doesn’t function as quickly as expected and you need to turn the nut on the opposite side to produce enough tension for the beam to lock in place. According to Park, this was a difficult decision, and in the end, they purposely went this route in order to prevent accidental (and potentially damaging) release of the beam with a bike on it. Still, I feel a more elegant solution could have been found.

Beneath the beam is a small knob that easily allows you to adjust its fore-aft position in relation to the rest of the stand. This is an important feature as it allows you to best balance the weight of the bike over the tripod legs. It’s something that I’d approximate when unfolding the stand, and then dial in once the bike was fitted.

You then have two quick release collars to adjust. The first adjusts a collar on the sliding shaft of the stand, which when closed, causes a firm stop which prevents the stand from dropping in height. With this, stand rotation is now left solely to the lower quick release lever, and can be left completely open for easy swiveling without fear of the bike sinking in height, or closed to stop the bike from spinning. Both quick releases are quite large, but the lower one is perhaps counter-sunk a little too neatly, making it tough to undo if tight. My solution is to not close them all the way, instead, leaving a finger gap to use.

Now assembled, you can adjust the position of the dropout holder and mount the bike. This is done by selecting which end of the bike’s dropouts to clamp, removing the respective wheel and then tightening the big quick release down. Spacers are included so that 100, 130 or 135mm dropouts are not an issue. Likewise, the provided quick release can simply be replaced with your bike’s thru-axle, whether that be 12, 15 or 20mm – with such a size adjustment done with a simple tool-free pin. Unlike its predecessors and competitors, no thru-axle adaptors are needed for this stand.

With the fork or rear dropout clamped, you then just need to ensure the bottom bracket cradle pads are supporting from the right spot. This is especially important for bikes with cable guides, bottom bracket-mounted drivetrain batteries or older power meters. Here, Park’s new stand really shines, offering far more adjustability than any other stand on the market. The tall bottom bracket pads are independently adjustable in length, angle and width to clear just about any problematic bottom bracket design, cable placement or accessory.

The only catch is that you’ll need to use a 4mm hex key to undo the three bolts holding each one in place. Yep, another fiddle, made more difficult since the bike needs to be held out of the way, or removed from the stand altogether.

If you own just one bike, or multiple similar bikes (e.g. all road bikes, in your size), then this race stand is most likely a set-and-forget affair, as it is for professional race mechanics working on a fleet of near-identical bikes. However, if you’re constantly working on a variety of bikes, home mechanics may find a workstand with a tube clamp offers more utility (more on this below).

While it’s possible to clamp the rear of the bike to work on a headset or adjust/bleed a front brake, the majority of road bike owners will probably only ever clamp the fork. Removing either wheel to work on a bike can be a bit of a hassle (another point in favour of workstand with a tube clamp), but removing a front wheel is always the easier of the two.

PRS-22 vs PRS-22.2

The PRS-22.2 sees the two quick releases split across two clamps. The upper one is used to lock in the height setting, the lower controls the rotation.

The PRS-22.2 is nearly identical to the PRS-22 stand that we originally reviewed April 2017. The most notable update concerns the height and swivel collar. Previously, this was a single plastic piece with two quick-release levers, and now, it is two separate pieces. It’s a fix that Park has “borrowed” from its closest work stand competitor, Feedback Sports, and it’s a welcome change. In our original review, we found this collar fiddly to use and not all that secure.

It’s the tolerance in this joint that bothers me most. According to Park, the new PRS-22.2 offers tighter tolerances.

In addition to the updated clamp, Park state they have tightened the tolerances between the pivot bracket and the beam bracket. This too, is a welcome change, since the original design, as evident in my sample, is prone to a light knocking during use as the stand’s beam tilted back and forth (which occurred even when the central clamp was torqued up tightly).

For owners of the PRS-22, they can obtain the updated height and swivel collar by ordering parts #2707.2 (US$21.80) and #2737 (US$16.40). At this stage, there is no (cheap) way to replace the beam hinge for the newer version with a tighter tolerance.

Wrenching on the PRS-22.2

Once the PRS-22.2 is configured to suit a bike, it takes about 30 seconds to remove the wheel and install the bike on the stand, which is plenty quick for most home mechanics.

On flat ground, the tripod stand is very stable, with little risk of toppling. If you’re out in the garden or working at the races where the ground is uneven, you’ll need to pay closer attention to the fore-aft placement of the main beam to ensure the bike is well balanced over the base.

The PRS-22.2 is really well suited to working in tight quarters, and provided the tripod is secure, and the bike well balanced, the bike remains secure when making forceful adjustments or removing tight components. It’s a different sensation compared to a regular clamp stand, where the bike can bounce and bob around the point of attachment.

For those looking for more security, a rubberised strap is supplied with the stand for securing the downtube to the stand. This will stop the bike from lifting at the bottom bracket but it can get in the way. I found it was more useful for keeping everything together when the stand was folded up for storage.

The stand also works well for cleaning bikes, and for most buyers, this is when it will get most of its use. The bike can be positioned at a good working height (76cm-114cm) then rotated as required to keep the spray and muck from flicking back on the mechanic. In this regard, the new adjustment collar for the PRS-22.2 is a great addition because it is easier to use and more effective than the original design.

Having used the PRS-22 for over a year, there are just two aspects that stand out as weaknesses. The first is that play in the center post mentioned above, which no amount of torque on the clamp can remove. If Park has managed to eliminate this with their new tolerances for the revised PRS-22.2, then I’ll be ready to cheer. At the moment, I haven’t been able to test this aspect of the updated stand but I’ll provide an update once I have.

The other shortcoming concerns the steel bolts that hold the bottom bracket cradle pads in place. After a year of use, they now have some surface rust on them, which is unsurprising given that water always ends up pooling in this area when a bike is washed. It’s an obvious oversight, but at least it’s an easy fix with a new set of stainless steel bolts (I’d recommend paying more for marine-grade bolts, just to be sure).

Bottom bracket cradle or tube clamp?

For me, as a home user, this was the main question I had when reviewing the first PRS-22, and then the PRS-22.2. Would I buy this over a workstand with a tube clamp?

The benefits of a cradle-type repair stand, like the PRS-22.2, are pretty obvious. The bike is extremely stable and well supported, something that’s especially important for the latest generation of ultra-light (or weirdly shaped) composite machines. The bike typically sits at a more comfortable working height and you can swing it so that the opposite side of the bike comes to you. Additionally, the working footprint is noticeable smaller, which is essential for working in cramped spaces (like a small shed or an apartment balcony). Lastly, these kind of stands provide a convenient point of reference for handlebar and saddle adjustments, so there’s plenty to like.

Still, my preference still sits with tube clamps (for grabbing the seatpost, never the frame). To start with, it is much quicker and easier to install the bike in the stand. This is something that has become more noticeable as disc brakes have become widespread. The latest wide-opening and stubby clamps will also work on just about all aero and weirdly shaped seatposts, so it only ever takes a moment to get the bike off the ground. Plus, there’s little risk in (gently) clamping a carbon seatpost.

This alone probably accounts for why work stands with tube clamps are preferred by mechanics at MTB and CX races. I also appreciate the fact that it is easy to adjust the working angle of the bike. This is not always necessary but it can be the secret when working on internally cabled frames or hydraulic disc brakes.

If you’re shopping for your first stand, then you’ll find that stands with tube clamps are also cheaper than the PRS-22.2. Park Tool’s PRS-10 is built around a tube clamp and it remains high on my list of recommendations. Not only is it quite affordable, it is easy to use, stable, and it’ll last forever. I can say similar things for Feedback Sports entry-level stands too.

Moving up to the price of PRS-22.2, there are a few more options with tube clamps, including Park’s Team Issue PRS-25 and the Feedback Sports Pro Elite, both of which I’ve used extensively and strongly recommend.

Conclusion

If you’re like WorldTour pro mechanics and like the compact size and support of a cradle-type workstand that has a convenient carousel function for spinning the bike around, then Park’s PRS-22.2 is an impressively solid choice. It will provide a sure and secure hold on most bikes (tandems are a different story) while providing a great working height, and it’s built to last a lifetime.

Despite being somewhat of a fiddle to set up, a number of new features means this stand will accommodate a wider variety of bikes, including those with power meters and thru-axles. My loyalty still lies with stands that have tube clamps, but the Park Tool PRS-22.2 is very good — dare I say the best — if you’re set on this style of transportable stand.

Fully folded, the PRS-22.2 (PRS-22 pictured) is Park’s lightest and most compact stand to date.

Road, mountain, gravel, TT, cross bike or whatever else, the PRS-22.2 will work.

The stand can be adjusted in height, right up to 114cm (bottom bracket height).

The Park Tool PRS-22.2 (PRS-22 pictured) next to the PCS-10

It’s a commonly asked question. Race repair stand or tube-clamp workstand?

The tall and widely-adjustable bottom bracket cradle is a big step above other options on the market.

Fitting a thru-axle to this stand requires no additional parts. You just need your bike’s thru-axle in place.

Clamping a quick release fork is simple – just pay attention to the orientation of the provided spacers

The PRS-22.2 was built with lightweight road and time-trial bikes in mind, however, it’s capable of holding much more.

This pin decides what size axle can be fitted. Pictured in the middle slot, it’ll work with either the provided quick release or a 15mm thru-axle. Move to the pin for either 12 or 20mm thru-axles.

Another view of that main beam.

A folded view of the new PRS-22.2 clamps.

This quick release holds the main beam upright. It’s a bit of a fiddle to find the ‘sweet spot’.

The original PRS-22 featured these two quick releases on the same clamp. One for the height and the other to allow the beam to spin. I originally found them difficult to use.

The bottom bracket cradle pads are independently adjustable. You can slide them any way you want, angle them and even flip them for wide or narrow spacing.

Simply undo the knob to remove the quick release assembly and install a thru-axle

Full view of the main beam.

This provided strap can be used to secure the bottom bracket to the stand, but I rarely found the need for it.

Price: US$329.95 / AUD$550
http://www.parktool.com/

The post Park Tool PRS-22.2 Team Issue repair stand review (updated) appeared first on CyclingTips.

Giant’s previous-generation Defy range broke new ground in 2014 by being the first complete range of endurance road bikes from a major manufacturer to exclusively offer disc brakes. It was also a very nice bike, period, but also more of a toned-down road racer than a machine that was purpose-built for performance-oriented comfort. That’s all changed with the new Defy Advanced family, which rides much more smoothly and is a little more versatile than before, and now even includes a Giant-developed dual-sided power meter as standard equipment on the top-end model. But even so, it’s still a high-performance rig that can keep up just as well as before.
tr

Going ultra-cush, with a capital D

One of the core features of the Giant Defy range was its D-Fuse seatpost. Seatpost flex has long been identified as a key contributor to rider comfort, and the D-shaped one on the Defy, with its flat-backed profile, was designed to flex more on bumps. Giant may not have been the very first to use the idea, but it’s since been adopted by many other companies for the same reason that Giant did: because it worked.

The top-end Defy Advanced Pro 0 (there is no SL model, at least not for now) is an impressively sharp and wickedly comfortable machine. The Defy family is the “bread and butter” of Giant’s road bike range, and given the improvements, that trend will certainly continue moving forward. Photo: Sterling Lorence.

Not surprisingly, then, the new Defy Advanced continues on with the idea, but with more refined shaping throughout the rear end so the entire seat tube is even more flexible and can provide even greater comfort than before. A very slight curve in the slender seatstays has been added to further promote that movement, and the offset seat cluster (which has also been proven to promote desirable rear-end movement) continues on as well. The compact frame design that Giant pioneered in the 1990s is especially fitting here, too, since it exposes more seatpost than frames with moderately sloping or level top tubes.

What was missing before, however, was that same level of comfort up front; like the original Trek Domane, the previous Defy could still feel jarring through the bars. But how to tackle that without copying the flexy steerer tube design of Trek’s Front IsoSpeed, or the dedicated FutureShock coil-spring element of the Specialized Roubaix?

Simple: turn the seatpost sideways.

Giant has carried over the D-Fuse seatpost concept over to a new D-Fuse handlebar on the new Defy. Made in both carbon fiber and aluminum versions, the tops feature a D-shaped profile that provides a noticeable amount of give on less-than-perfect tarmac. Photo: Sterling Lorence.

The 2019 Defy Advanced’s new D-Fuse handlebar uses a similar D-shaped cross-section on the bar tops, with the same end goal as on the seatpost — and it’s supposedly good for up to 12mm of movement at the end of the drops. There are aluminum and carbon fiber versions of the new bar, and Giant says the flex characteristics of each has been tuned to mirror the rear end. The amount of compliance can also be adjusted by rotating the bar in the stem clamp so as to change the orientation of that D-shaped cross-section relative to impact forces, and since the lower part of the bar tops is rounded as usual, it remains stiff when pulling upward, like in a sprint or steep climb.

It’s an obvious solution in hindsight, and like many good ideas, Giant isn’t the only company to come to a similar conclusion. The flattened stem on the new BMC Timemachine Road is intentionally shaped to do the same thing, for example, and Trek claims similar benefits on the integrated cockpit of the latest Madone. But what many riders will invariably find appealing about the D-Fuse bar concept is its straightforward design.

“We’ve always erred towards simplicity in our designs,” said Giant global product marketing manager Andrew Juskaitis. “We’re not a fan of gimmicks.”

Giant officially pegs the maximum allowable tire size on the new Defy Advanced range at 32mm – or 28mm when fenders are fitted. Pictured here are 28c Giant Gavia tubeless clinchers mounted on 17mm-wide Giant SLR 1 carbon clinchers.

Adding further plushness are newly upsized tires. Giant equipped the previous-generation Defy with 25mm-wide rubber, with a maximum allowable tire size of 28mm; that’s now increased to 32mm, with 28mm-wide tires included stock. Riders in wetter climates will be glad to hear that Giant has built front and rear fender mounts into the new frameset, too (although when fitted, the maximum recommended tire size is 28mm).

But still maintaining an edge

As much as Giant focused more keenly on ride quality this time around, the company still didn’t want to give up the performance that many riders prized in the old version.

One direct benefit of isolating the comfort aspects of the bike to the seatpost and handlebar is that it allowed frame designers to concentrate more on stiffness for the rest of the Defy Advanced chassis. Aside from those super-skinny seatstays and the pared-down seat tube, the rest of the carbon fiber frame is notably big and bulbous like a purebred climber. Down below is Giant’s trademark “PowerCore” bottom bracket — basically its moniker for PF86 — with all the adjoining tubes flared out to the edges of the press-fit shell to boost low-end rigidity. The down tube is, well, giant, and while the top tube starts out fairly slender at the seat tube, it flares substantially as it approaches the tapered head tube.

Giant’s decision to build much of the Defy Advanced’s ride comfort into the handlebar and seatpost means the the front triangle can remain quite stout for good torsional stiffness. The down tube is truly enormous, yet the bike rides exceptionally smoothly.

The end result, according to Giant, is a pedaling stiffness measurement identical to the new Propel aero road racing bike, and although the company didn’t provide figures for front-end torsional stiffness, that likely isn’t too far off, judging by the size of the main tubes. Adding to that is the OverDrive 2 1 1/4-to-1 1/2in tapered steerer tube on the all-carbon fork for the upper-end Defy Advanced Pro models; standard Defy Advanced frames get a more conventional 1 1/8-to-1 1/2in tapered steerer.

In an age when seemingly everything is going aero to some degree, it might seem odd that Giant hasn’t bothered to incorporate a lick of wind-cheating shaping into the new Defy range, instead concentrating solely on ride quality without worrying about the marginal effects of a little more drag. Truth be told, most Defy buyers probably won’t care how efficiently they move through the air; they just don’t want their hands and butt to hurt. Aero wheels, helmets, and clothing contribute more in that regard than aero frames, anyway, so it’s hard to argue with Giant’s approach here.

But that said, the new Defy Advanced Pro models still borrow a page from the Propel’s playbook with the new Contact Stealth SL stem. Derailleur and brake lines are routed from the bar along the top and down the back of the stem, before entering the frame behind the headset. Bolt-on cosmetic plastic caps keep all of that concealed for a neat and tidy look, along with split headset spacers similar to what’s used on the Propel.

Similar (but not identical) to the system that Giant uses on the Propel aero road bike is a capped stem that hides the internally routed cables. It conceals the lines, yes, but it also adds visual bulk elsewhere, especially if you need to run a tall stack of spacers.

Other features include flat-mount disc brakes instead of the post-mount ones on the previous version — the entire Defy range is once again disc-only — 12mm front and rear thru-axles, and very wide-range gearing with 50/34T chainrings up front and 11-34T cassettes on all models.

Interestingly, Giant hasn’t introduced a new flagship-level Defy Advanced SL chassis like on the old Defy range. Giant didn’t announce any plans to reintroduce something at such a premium end of the spectrum, with its integrated seatmast and paltry 730g claimed frame weight, but that’s not to say that it won’t be added later.

So for now, the Defy Advanced Pro will be the torch-bearer for the new Defy family, built with Giant’s second-tier blend of carbon fibers and a little extra heft as a result. Claimed frame weight is 920g for a painted medium frame. The standard Defy Advanced uses the same frame shape and fiber composition, but with the aforementioned downsized steerer tube dimension on the full-carbon fork.

The all-carbon fork uses slender legs (also with flat-backed profiles) to further enhance ride comfort. All Defy Advanced forks feature tapered steerer tubes with 1 1/2in lower diameters, but while the standard Defy Advanced uses a 1 1/8in diameter up top, the Defy Advanced Pro gets the OverDrive 2 treatment with its bigger 1 1/4in diameter.

Standard Defy Advanced models also make do with more conventional stems and partially exposed cabling, although the routing is still similar overall.

Geometry tweaks

The Defy has always been among the more sporting of major-label endurance road bikes, with handling and positioning that were only mildly toned-down relative to the more racing-oriented TCR family. That mostly hasn’t changed, but Giant has still added a little more stability — well, sort of.

Bottom bracket drop has increased from 70mm to 75mm for a more planted feel at high speed, and a more planted composure through corners. But that’s been offset somewhat by slightly altered head tube angles. Save for the smallest size, trail decreased by a scant 1-2mm across the board as a result to make the front ends a touch more agile. In fact, the trail numbers are now even closer to those of the TCR than before, but that dartiness is tempered by the Defy’s longer chainstays, longer front-centers, and longer wheelbases.

Adding to the redesigned Defy Advanced Pro’s incredibly supple ride is the offset seat cluster, another strategy that an increasing number of companies have employed in recent years to promote frame flex over bumps.

Also new — and long overdue — is an XL size for taller riders.

Stack and reach dimensions remain only subtly relaxed relative to the TCR family. Across the small, medium, and large sizes, the stack on the Defy is a fairly modest 17-24mm taller, while the reach is just 4-12mm shorter.

A standard-issue dual-sided power meter

Several bike brands have begun including power meters on their upper-end road bikes, and Giant is now the latest company to toss its hat into that ring. And like Specialized, the new Giant Power Pro power meter is branded as an in-house item. But according to Giant, its power meter was wholly developed in-house, including all hardware and software, with no outside collaboration (Specialized worked with 4iiii Innovations for the S-Works power meter).

One might assume, given the appearance, that Giant partnered with Pioneer to develop its new Power Pro power meter. But Giant says the new dual-sided meter was developed completely in-house. It will be included as stock equipment on the Defy Advanced Pro 0 (as well as a few other select road models for 2019). Claimed accuracy is +/- 2%.

The crankarm-based Giant Power Pro offers independent dual-sided measurement with advanced features such as left/right power balance and force angle. Accuracy is pegged at +/- 2%, and claimed battery life is 150 hours or 1,500 miles of ride time. Like most dual-sided devices on the market, the two sides of the Power Pro aren’t physically connected, so each unit has its own ANT+ and Bluetooth-compatible wireless hardware and battery, the latter of which is recharged with a proprietary magnetic dongle.

An associated smartphone app allows for easy battery monitoring and calibration, and Giant claims that the Power Pro is weatherproof to the IPX7 certification standard.

The Power Pro will be included as standard equipment on the top-end Defy Advanced Pro 0 and a few other of Giant’s more premium road bikes to be announced for 2019. Aftermarket sales are scheduled to follow in about a year or so, with the aggressive pricing you’ve come to expect from the Taiwanese company. Target price will be around US$849-899 for the Ultegra model.

Models, prices, and availability

Giant will offer up to seven carbon Defy Advanced models for the 2019 season, depending on region.

The top-end Defy Advanced Pro 0 is built with a Shimano Ultegra Di2 disc-brake groupset, the Giant Power Pro power meter, a Giant SLR-0 carbon clincher wheelset, and the carbon fiber Giant Contact SLR D-Fuse handlebar for US$5,300 / AU$6,699.

The US$3,600 / AU$4,999 Defy Advanced Pro 1 swaps the Ultegra Di2 groupset for the mechanical version, and the Defy Advanced Pro 2 moves to a Shimano 105 mechanical transmission and the aluminum Contact SL D-Fuse handlebar; pricing on that model is still to be confirmed.

From there, the Defy Advanced range moves to the standard OverDrive fork and non-stealth stems.

The Defy Advanced 1 (US$2,400 / AU$N/A) comes with a mechanical Shimano Ultegra transmission, Shimano Ultegra hydraulic disc brakes, and Giant P-R2 aluminum clinchers. Certain regions will see an alternative Defy Advanced 1 that substitutes the Ultegra hydraulic disc brakes for Giant’s own Conduct SL mechanical-to-hydraulic disc brakes.

The Defy Advanced 2 (US$2,000 / AU$2,999) also uses Giant’s Conduct SL hybrid disc brakes, but with a Shimano 105 transmission, and finally, there’s the Defy Advanced 3 (US$1,750 / AU$N/A) with a Shimano Tiagra transmission and Giant Conduct hybrid disc brakes.

Availability is still to be confirmed across the board. Australian and New Zealand markets will only offer the Defy Advanced Pro 0, Advanced Pro 1 and Advanced 2.

The Defy Advanced Pro 2 comes with a Shimano 105 mechanical transmission, Shimano 105 hydraulic disc brakes, and Giant’s SLR-1 carbon clinchers. Photo: Giant Bicycle.

Suffering on the Gavia

Giant chose to debut the new Defy Advanced range at the foot of the legendary Gavia pass in northern Italy, where the roads are unevenly paved and littered with frost heave and potholes, and the corners transition inconsistently from slightly banked to off-camber to crowned. Climbing either side isn’t exactly easy — we did both over two successive days on the top-end Defy Advanced Pro 0 model — and the descents demand a deft hand and keen attention.

In other words, it’s a fitting crucible for quickly getting a good feel for what the new Defy Advanced range has to offer. And for the most part, it’s a fantastic bike.

The new Giant Defy Advanced Pro 0 is a very capable machine on long, hard climbs, but also a joy to thrash on fast downhills, too. Photo: Sterling Lorence.

As promised, both the D-Fuse seatpost and D-Fuse handlebar visibly and tangibly move on a wide range of road imperfections, helping to cancel out smaller road buzz as well as dull the harshness of unexpected potholes. Combined with 70-75psi in the 28mm-wide tubeless tires, the Defy Advanced Pro 0 is the proverbial couch on wheels, even in the small size that I rode. Even better, the ride quality is finally very balanced from front to rear.

Also as promised, the new Defy hasn’t lost the snappiness under power that characterized the old model. Sections of the Gavia kick up into the mid-teens in terms of gradient, and rising out of the saddle and swinging the bars back and forth reveal little undesired bottom bracket sway or rear-end wag, but plenty of eagerness to accelerate forward. That D-shaped handlebar really does do an admirable job of resisting movement when you pull upwards on the hoods or drops, too, and even though Giant hasn’t graced the Defy Advanced family with its best carbon fiber, the complete bike is still pleasantly light at 8.22kg (18.12lb) with a set of Time Expresso 4 pedals, a pair of Giant carbon cages, and a chunky integrated computer mount attached to the stem faceplate — not bad, especially when you consider that the Ultegra Di2 groupset isn’t exactly renowned for its wispiness.

All Giant Defy Advanced and Advanced Pro models are fitted with compact 50/34T chainrings up front and wide-range 11-34T cassettes. The 1:1 low gear ratio was most welcome while climbing up the south side of the Gavia.

Handling manners on the Defy are fantastic, with both superb high-speed stability upwards of 70km/h, but yet a willing eagerness to dive into corner apexes. Sure, it still doesn’t quite snake through turns or alter its line as readily as the TCR, but short of criterium racers, I’m not sure many riders will care.

And as for that power meter, well, it produced numbers on the Giant NeosTrack head unit that seemed believable enough. I didn’t have any way of verifying the system’s accuracy, though, and also didn’t have the bike for enough time to monitor its long-term consistency. The jury’s still out on this one, but let’s hope Giant did its homework.

A few reservations, and questions to answer

I’d be lying if I said the new Defy Advanced was all flowers and rainbows, though.

For one, I can’t say I’m a big fan of the Contact SL Stealth stem concept. While the concealed cabling is nice in theory, the bolt-on plastic caps and bulbous headset spacers add back a bunch of visual clutter and bulk. It also makes it tricky to change handlebar height or stem length, since the lines need to be cut to precise lengths for everything to work inside the frame and fork.

Removing spacers definitely improves the visual balance of the new Giant Defy Advanced Pro. Otherwise, the front end looks rather ungainly and top-heavy, especially when contrasted with the svelte rear end.

Perhaps compounding that issue is the D-Fuse handlebar’s extremely short reach, shallow drop, and clipped ends. That sort of shaping is clearly aimed at more casual riders, but I couldn’t get over the sensation that I was riding a kid’s bar with too much cut off of the ends. The minimal reach also makes for little difference in posture when your hands are on the tops vs. the hoods. If you’re listening, Giant, please expand the D-Fuse handlebar concept into something with a more conventional shape.

Moving on to finer details, I also don’t quite understand Giant’s decision to spec 140mm-diameter rotors front and rear. While Shimano does declare such a thing to be safe, I frequently found myself wishing for more braking power when approaching the countess tight-radius downhill switchbacks that punctuated the sinuous descent down into the quaint little ski town of Santa Caterina Valfulva. On the plus side, the brakes never once made a peep, even when hot, although conditions were bone-dry for both days of riding so I can’t say if that would have been the case in the wet.

Giant has curiously opted to equip the Defy range with 140mm-diameter rotors front and rear, rather than a more forgiving (and more powerful) 160mm one up front. It’s thankfully an easy switch for riders that want more braking performance. Riders that prefer rim brakes are out of luck, though; the Defy is once again disc-only across the board.

Finally, I appreciate that Giant is following the lead of other companies in incorporating some accessory integration into the range. The new saddles have little ports on the back for things like LED blinkers, bags, and mini-fenders, but the faceplate-mounted computer perch just looks big and clumsy to my eye, adding to the inelegance of the cockpit area in general. It also lacks angle adjustment, and I kept wishing I could tilt the screen down a bit from where it was.

Otherwise, though, Giant has done a really nice job here, and I truly look forward to spending more time on a long-term sample. In all honesty, if I were in the market for something like this, I’d seriously consider buying one.

www.giant-bicycles.com

Giant sought to make its Defy range of endurance road bikes more comfortable and more versatile than before. It sure feels like it succeeded.

Giant first introduced its “D-Fuse” D-shaped carbon fiber seatpost on the previous-generation Defy, claiming the flattened trailing edge made the seatpost more apt to flex over bumps. Giant wasn’t the first to use the concept, and certainly hasn’t been the last, and it’s both tangibly and visibly effective.

Giant’s compact road frame design is well suited to a comfortable ride, too, given that it exposes more seatpost than a semi-compact or traditional profile.

The Defy is more capable than before – it now officially clears 32mm-wide tires – but Giant is quick to point out that Defy is still very much meant to be ridden on paved (or maybe smoother dirt) roads. This is not designed as a gravel machine.

Cables are mostly hidden on the new Defy, but not completely so.

Riders can tune the ride feel of the bars, too, based on how they’re rotated in the stem (which changes the orientation of that D-shaped profile relative to impact forces). Of course, doing so will also alter the fit of the bar, too, so that’s something to keep in mind.

Granted, the Giant Defy is more likely to find favor toward riders that want a less aggressive position than the more racing-oriented TCR. But even so, the D-Fuse handlebar still sports a very unusually short reach and shallow drop. The D-Fuse concept clearly works as intended, but some other bar shapes would be welcome.

The profiled headset spacers are split so it’s a little easier to make handlebar height adjustments. The profiled cap still requires you to cut the steerer mostly flush, though. The rear half of the headset spacers are made of a soft, rubbery material so as not to damage the cables that are hidden inside as the bars are turned.

Similarly, these spring-loaded doors on the stem’s cosmetic cap are also in place to prevent cable damage when turning the bars. To access the stem clamp bolts, the cap is simply removed completely.

The plastic top and rear caps also make the stems look much longer than they really are, for better or worse. This one looks like it could be a 130mm, for example, but the axis of rotation is actually roughly in between the two bolts holding on the rear stem cap.

Giant offers an integrated computer mount that attaches to the lower pair of stem faceplate bolts. The upward angle makes it easier to view the screen, but some riders might find it to look a little funny.

Clearance through the fork is definitely quite generous with the stock 28mm-wide tires.

The fork blades have a somewhat bowlegged stance.

Down below is Giant’s long-running “PowerCore” press-fit bottom bracket – otherwise known as a common PF86 setup with adjoining tube sections that are pushed far out to the edges of the shell to help enhance frame stiffness. Press-fit fitments are still viewed unfavorably by a large portion of the discerning market, but in fairness to Giant, PF86 is genereally less problematic than most narrow-format press-fit designs, such as BB30 and PF30.

The top tube gracefully grows in both width and height as it approaches the head tube.

Cables are fully hidden on stock bikes, but the new Defy Advanced and Advanced Pro can still be used with conventional stems and cockpits if desired, and cables can be fed into the head tube if desired.

Whereas the two sides of Shimano’s Dura-Ace power meter are physically connected and share a single battery, Giant is going with separate units, each with their own wireless transmitters and rechargeable batteries. Claimed battery life is 150 hours or 1,500 miles of riding, and recharging is done with a proprietary magnetic dongle.

Giant is continuing to outfit its bikes with tubeless clinchers as stock equipment. Tires are premounted from the factory, and dealers only have to inject sealant during assembly. Defy models are equipped with 28mm-wide tires across the board.

Flat-mount brake calipers and 12mm thru-axles are fitted to both ends.

Front and rear fender mounts are neatly hidden on the Defy Advanced (and Advanced Pro) frame and fork. Not shown is the removable seatstay bridge.

Manufacturers of higher-end road bikes often balk at including fender mounts for fear of detracting from a performance-minded look and feel. Needless to say, these don’t seem particularly offensive.

The seatpost is held in place with an aluminum wedge-type binder, which usually resides under a tidy rubber cover.

The front derailleur mount is removable for riders that might be interested in switching to a single-chainring setup at some point.

Giant’s new Contact SL saddle sports a more agreeable shape (at least for me).

New Giant saddles are fitted with a neat port out back that can accept a variety of accessories, including rear lights, bags, flat kits, and mini-fenders.

The non-driveside chainstay has fittings for Giant’s wireless speed and cadence sensor.

Shimano’s Di2 bar plugs are proving to be a popular option for OEM brands.

The holographic down tube logo is a nice touch. In most situations, it just looks black.

The post Giant Defy Advanced Pro 0 first-ride review: Super smooth, power meter included appeared first on CyclingTips.

The Diamante has been the premier carbon road frame in Basso’s catalogue for several years, however it has always been a largely traditional offering. That is until 2017, when the company unveiled the Diamante SV, an aerodynamic version of the flagship model, followed by the addition of disc brakes for 2018.

In terms of keeping pace with the market, Basso’s entry into the aero road bike realm is obviously late, and as Matt Wikstrom discovered, it trails behind what the best of the market has to offer.

Basso Bikes is a proud Italian company that celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2017. Founded by Alcide Basso, the company grew out of the garage where he started building his first steel frames in 1974. He had the help of his two brothers, the oldest of which was Marino, winner of several Grand Tour stages and the 1972 World Road Cycling Champion.

Basso soon developed a strong reputation for the quality of its steel frames and continued using the material into the ‘90s before embracing aluminium, titanium, and eventually carbon fibre. Alcide enjoyed experimenting with the new materials, but his primary drive was always focussed on improving the performance of Basso’s products.

When other proud Italian brands such as Colnago, Bianchi, and Pinarello started looking to Asia for help with manufacturing, Basso Bikes remained steadfastly committed to maintaining its facilities in the north of Italy, near Vicenza. In an era when “made in Italy” does not always mean that the frame is actually constructed in an Italian factory, Basso’s fleet of carbon bikes are all local products.

Adding an aero race bike to the range

As mentioned above, the Diamante has been Basso’s flagship road bike for several years, and in that time it has undergone a few revisions. We reviewed one of the earlier versions in 2013 while the latest iteration was unveiled at Eurobike this year. Throughout it all, the Diamante has remained a racing thoroughbred, though very few allowances were ever made in the name of aerodynamic performance.

“Aero is everything” has become a familiar catch cry in the current road bike market and enthusiasm for marginal gains has overtaken the professional peloton. Race bikes are now sleeker than ever and there is something of an expectation that any performance-oriented bike needs to slip through the air with the help of Kamm tails, integrated seatpost clamps, and hidden cables.

As a small manufacturer, it’s easy to understand why Basso was slow to respond to enthusiasm for aero road bikes. After all, it’s one thing to present the market with a new bike, but it’s another to expect shoppers to pay for it.

As late as Basso was to the aero road bike party, it did not rush the development of a suitable bike. According to the company, two years were devoted to creating an aerodynamic version of the Diamante, which was dubbed the Diamante SV for its 2017 debut.

“Super Veloce” is what the SV stands for, which translates to “super fast” in English. That alone is enough to sum up how Basso feels about the new bike, however the company is quick to point out that it never wanted to create a bike that was aero at all costs. Aesthetics, weight, and serviceability were all overriding concerns, which meant Basso was only prepared to go so far to improve the aerodynamics of the new frameset.

Be that as it may, the Diamante SV exhibits many of the touches that have come to define modern aero road bikes. A broad Kamm tail serves as the down tube of the new bike, with another slimmer version for the seat tube and post and an integrated clamp to preserve its sleek shape. The lowered seatstays are also a familiar sight, as is a seat tube that follows the curve of the rear wheel.

Kamm tails are used for shaping the down- and seat-tubes of the Diamante SV.

According to Basso, a NACA algorithm was used to design the aerodynamic profiles incorporated into the Diamante SV, however no wind tunnel testing was carried out to prove the efficacy of the design. There’s no data from benchmarking studies either, which will disappoint aero-weenies.

Interestingly, independent testing by Tour Magazin determined that 220W was required to drive the rim brake version of the Diamante SV with a 50mm carbon wheelset at 45km/h. By comparison, the same publication reported 207W for Cervélo’s S5; Giant’s new Propel came in at 209W; Canyon’s Aeroad, 211W; and Scott’s Foil Premium, 215W. At the other end of the spectrum, Trek’s Émonda required 239W; Giant’s TCR Advanced, 235W; Scott’s Addict, 229W; and Canyon’s Ultimate, 226W.

Thus, on the basis of these results, it appears that the Diamante SV is a modest aero performer, offering buyers some free speed, true to Basso’s claims. In absolute terms, though, the Diamante SV is not quite as sleek as some bikes, so aero-weenies won’t be wooed by Basso on this occasion.

The finer details

There is more to the performance of a bike than simply cheating the wind, though. One look at the change in direction for the design of the new Venge is all that is needed to confirm this notion. For Basso, it was important that the bike remained stiff and light, hence the use of Torayca high modulus fibres (T800 and T1000) throughout the Diamante SV Disc. According to Basso, a size 53 weighs in at 820g without paint, which has to be counted as a pretty feathery result.

The specifications for the Diamante SV Disc are familiar by modern standards: the headtube is tapered with a 1.5inch lower headset bearing and a tapered fork steerer to match; BB86 shell; 12mm thru-axles, front and rear; flat mount disc brakes; and internal routing for the brakes and gear cable/wires. For the last, the frame is supplied with interchangeable fittings to suit both electronic and mechanical groupsets.

The frame makes use of a proprietary seatpost design with an integrated clamp that sits at the rear of the seat tube. Dubbed Basso-3B, the patented system is akin to a large brake pad that grips the seatpost. A pair of grub screws takes care of adjustment, while a third bolt keeps the “pad” in place when the post is removed. Finally, a rubber gusset surrounds the post with the promise of reducing vibration.

Basso’s integrated seatpost clamp is very neat but tiny grub screws can become problematic.

With a long and low front end and short chainstays (400-406mm, increasing with the size of the frame), the geometry of the Diamante SV Disc is aggressively race-oriented. Buyers have a choice of seven sizes, as shown in the table below:

The stack of the Diamante SV Disc can be moderated by 20mm by fitting Basso’s “comfort kit” that is included with the frameset. This is a moulded spacer that fits neatly into the upper bearing race of the head tube and integrates with the top tube. Basso doesn’t provide any numbers for the stack and fit of the frame with the comfort kit in place, but a 20mm increase in stack should decrease the reach ~6mm for every frame size.

Also missing from Basso’s geometry charts are details on the fork rake/trail and bottom bracket drop, and a request for this information was ignored, so the company clearly considers it proprietary knowledge. Interestingly, Basso makes use of the same top tube length, head tube angle, and seat tube angle for all of its road frames, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the trail and drop were also part of a time-proven formula.

Basso’s “comfort kit” allows the stack of the frame to be increased by 20mm for a more relaxed fit.

The Diamante SV Disc has an imposing, muscular presence that almost demands a mid- or high-profile wheelset to complement its bold lines. The heavily fortified junctions of the frame add to this effect and raise expectations that the chassis will be stiff and unyielding. As for the finish, Basso currently offers four choices: pastel white (tested), black-anthracite, blue-orange, and white-Italia.

The weight of the 56cm frame sent for review by Basso’s Australian distributor, Dawson Sports Group, was 1,288g (without thru-axle or headset). That’s significantly more than the promised 820g for an unpainted 53cm frame mentioned above: the luxurious gloss finish probably accounts for most of the extra weight along with the seatpost clamp, rear derailleur hanger, and cable guides that were included in the weight of the sample frame.

The uncut fork supplied with the frame also suffers with the weight of paint, weighing in at 420g. The combined weight — 1,708g — is a lot for a modern race chassis, even after allowing for the extra weight associated with disc brake fittings and thru-axles.

Basso adheres to the current trend for road disc bikes by utilising 12mm thru-axles and flat mount disc brake callipers, front and rear.

The Diamante SV Disc frameset is shipped with a seatpost, headset and spacers, comfort kit, and an alloy stem. There is only one option for Basso’s proprietary seatpost — 15mm offset — while there is a choice of lengths (90/100/110/120/130) and two angles (0° and 11°) for the stem. The latter is not a strict requirement since any standard threadless stem can be installed on the bike (though at least one spacer will be required to cover the upper the upper headset bearing).

For this review, the Diamante SV Disc frameset was assembled with a SRAM Red eTap HRD groupset (including a Quarq Dzero power meter), alloy FSA bars, Fabric Scoop saddle, and Industry Nine’s i9.65 Disc wheelset fitted with 28C Vittoria Rubino Pro tyres and butyl tubes for a final weight of 8.08kg (without pedals or bottle cages). A switch to i9.35 wheels brought the weight of the bike down to 7.88kg, but that’s still a fair bit of heft given the calibre (and expense) of the parts used for this build.

As for the other important number, the price, the Diamante SV Disc frameset is expensive: AU$7,125/US$5,895/£3,750/€4,439. That price includes the frame, fork, headset, seatpost, thru-axles, and stem, plus a three-year warranty.

Stiff and Sturdy

I really enjoyed my first encounter with Basso’s Diamante, so I was looking forward to riding the Diamante SV Disc. Based on looks alone, I was expecting a stiffer and more robust bike, and that’s exactly what I found.

From my first moment on the bike to the last, it was incredibly sturdy, and yes, very stiff. But this was not just a matter of how sure the bike felt under load when I was sprinting out of the saddle. The front triangle was just as rigid as the bottom bracket area, so the steering response was always immediate and direct. It afforded the bike a certain poise that could not be perturbed, regardless of the terrain or the amount of energy I was expending.

The Diamante SV Disc was surprisingly smooth and silent. In this regard, the rubber gussett for the seatpost may have had a role to play, because the bike rarely rattled with vibration. Once again, that unshakeable poise was in effect, and it made the bike very easy to ride.

With that said, bumps, ruts and cracks all slowly took a toll. On short rides, I was untroubled by the bike’s inability to soak up these kind of hits, and if I chose my route carefully, I could spend three hours on the bike in relative comfort. Beyond that, the effect was much like sitting on an un-cushioned chair: time seems to pass easily until a soreness starts to seep into the body, then no amount of wriggling and re-adjustment can alleviate the discomfort and fatigue.

I spent the majority of the review period using 28C tyres inflated to 60psi, and while there was ample clearance for those tyres in both the frame and fork, I didn’t experiment with larger tyres. A swap to 25C tyres (inflated to 70psi) added a distinct edge to the ride quality of the bike, which really wasn’t needed, so I returned to the 28Cs after just a couple of rides.

The weight of the bike hampered its agility and responsiveness. Rather than lively, the Diamante SV Disc was somewhat dull, even when a set of lighter wheels were fitted to the bike. If Diamante SV Disc wasn’t pitched as a race bike, then the absence of this kind of energy might have been easy to forgive; instead I was left wanting, and my enthusiasm and excitement on the bike suffered because of it.

With that said, I have no trouble imagining just how effective and satisfying this bike could be for bigger and more powerful riders. I’ve seen these kind of riders really struggle with lighter and less robust bikes; I’ve also seen the way that these kind of bikes can suffer under the load of those riders. In this instance, the effect was the exact opposite, because I was struggling with the bike.

It’s also worth noting that the 56cm frame provided for this review was larger than my ideal size. The low stack of the frame and the 11° stem allowed me to achieve plenty of handlebar drop, but I had to resort to a 100mm stem to achieve my preferred reach. The net result was a noticeable change in weight distribution, which left me feeling like I was perched on top of the bike rather than nestled within.

To my mind, the combination of the two is enough to explain why I had trouble getting the best of the Diamante SV Disc. It was simply too much bike for me.

One of the things that impressed me about the Diamante that I reviewed in 2013 was the quality of the steering and handling. That bike was supremely stable and encouraged high speeds when descending. As for the Diamante SV Disc, it also had the same kind of handling, and it too, encouraged me to attack tricky descents with more speed.

The steering was close to neutral, which was a good match for the well-mannered poise of the bike. Yes, the bike could run wide out of corners, but rather than fight it, I was happy to give it some extra room and enjoy the speed.

Judging the aerodynamic performance of any bike is always difficult in the real world, but having just finished riding Chapter2’s Rere, which was a noticeably quick bike, I couldn’t help but be underwhelmed by the Diamante SV Disc. It just wasn’t in the same league as the Rere or some of the other bikes that have been proven to shine in this realm, such as Canyon’s Aeroad or Merida’s newest Reacto.

Basso makes use of a BB86 shell for the Diamante SV Disc, which is best suited to cranks with 24mm steel axles like SRAM’s GXP.

The Diamante SV Disc was largely trouble-free during the review period, though the thick gloss paint interfered with the fit of the wheel hubs and the flat-mount disc brake callipers. Once the paint started flaking off the inner face of the dropouts, it was easier to install the wheels, but I would have preferred to see these areas masked during painting to avoid the problem altogether. Likewise, the mounting surfaces for the disc callipers, because it made fine adjustments for aligning the brake pads very difficult.

The thru-axles that are supplied with the frameset employ a quick-release lever to ensure a tight hold on the wheels, but it was difficult to judge when to stopping winding the axle and use the lever. More often than not, I had to back off the axle so that the lever could be fully closed. I also noticed that the curve of each lever brought it very close to the rotor once it was closed, so that if it was ever bent, there’s a chance that it might make contact. A thru-axle with a cap head and hex-key fitting would be a better choice.

The seatpost clamp was effective and easy to adjust, but I wasn’t impressed with the small grub screws that were chosen for it. Small hex fittings (and keys, for that matter) are prone to rounding out quickly, and if any of the grub screws ever seizes in the frame — a seeming inevitability given they are located at the rear of the seat tube where road spray collects — they can be nearly impossible to remove. At least it will be an easy matter to apply some tape to protect them from the weather, though most owners are likely to overlook this simple measure.

Summary and final thoughts

Basso is obviously proud of the Diamante SV Disc, but when it is compared to what the rest of the aero road bike market has to offer, it falls short of being “the ultimate machine”. It is simply too stiff, heavy, and sluggish to satisfy that claim, especially considering the high-end asking price. That isn’t to say that I think it is over-priced; rather, it is a matter of it being over-pitched to the growing number of riders considering an aerodynamic race bike.

The bike still has some appealing strengths, such as its superb handling and sure-footed poise, along with the potential to satisfy the demands of big, powerful riders that have struggled with under-built frames in the past. This may be a small niche, but I can’t think of many aero road bikes in the current market (Scott’s original Foil is one bike that comes to mind, though) that can match the sturdiness and robustness of the Diamante SV Disc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of clearance for this 28C tyre that measured 29mm at 60psi.

Same goes for the rear of the bike.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Basso Diamante SV Disc review appeared first on CyclingTips.