Oh, how times have changed. I remember working in bike shops where the only people requesting bar bags were wearing fluorescent yellow vests and wanting to carry seemingly unnecessary items on the front of their hybrids. Back then, you had a few options, and all the good ones were from traditional (and typically German) touring luggage brands. And yet, here we are in 2018. Bar bags are somehow cool, adopted by the fashion-forward gravel and all-road riders who either don’t want to ride with jersey pockets and/or want to ride with trendy items like a mirrorless camera, beers, or a burrito.

I was never one for riding with accessories, and back from my weight weenie days, I learned to be an absolute minimalist. All I usually carried was some food, the simplest multi-tool, a CO2 cartridge, and a spare tube – all I needed for any ride. However, the see-the-sights gravel boom and the freedom of riding in more casual attire had me wondering: Perhaps there’s a reason people are attaching these things to the front of their handlebars?

Held on with two Velcro straps and a single tether cord, the Ornot Bar Bag is a simple item to fit, and an even simpler item to use. With a number of comparable options from the likes of Yanco and Road Runner also coming out of California, Ornot partners with San Francisco-based Rickshaw Bag Works, to create this quality item that fits just about any bike. The Bar Bag is not the first of its kind, but it’s certainly one of the more considered options.

What fits inside

The Bar Bag is capable of carrying a day’s worth of fun with a claimed internal volume of four liters. At 20cm-wide and weighing 233g, it’s small enough to fit between ultra-narrow drop bars, and can also be moved to flat bars if desired. The Velcro loops are long enough to fit some seriously fat bars, and the tether cord can be anchored from loops at three different heights to wrap around stems, steerers, or head tubes (protective tape is suggested in the event of paint rub).

A plastic sheet is sandwiched between two layers of material, and gives the bag its shape.

A removable plastic insert gives the single internal pocket its cylindrical shape, and also provides a little protection for whatever is held inside (hot tip: don’t remove the plastic insert as it’s a pain to get back in). Personally, I found the bag comfortably sized for carrying a FujiFilm X-E3 mirrorless camera, fitted with a 23mm lens. Doing so left space for some food, a few spares, and a lightweight jacket. Alternatively, you could easily carry a sandwich, snacks, warmers, a few packets of Haribo, and similar items inside. Mesh pockets on either side keep a mobile phone, a stroopwafel, some gels, and other smaller items within easy reach.

The Ornot Bag Bag won’t hold a huge pile of stuff, but that’s just fine as that’s not its intent. Rather, it’s the equivalent of an adventure daypack amongst the huge-capacity backpacking options. It’ll hold a decent number of things for a day trip, but there are many bigger and better bag options if you’re planning on sleeping out somewhere.

It works exactly as you’d think

Built to last.

The Bar Bag is a real no-nonsense product and offers just a touch of the block colour styling expected of California-based Ornot. Made predominantly from nylon canvas, it’s built solidly and to a high standard. Its US$90 price may seem steep – and let’s face it, it’s a lot of money for a basic bag. But that figure is inline with many competitors that are made overseas, and when you look at the details, it becomes a little easier to see why the Bar Bag costs what it does. For example, the tether cord and zipper pull feature reflective detailing, the Velcro straps are heartily reinforced, and the large zipper is from the zip-manufacturing specialist YKK, instead of some no-name brand that might be more prone to failure down the road.

The Bar Bag takes just seconds to fit, and I had no issues with it shifting or bouncing, even over rough gravel. Items inside can bounce noisily around against the plastic liner, though, and I found myself using either a jacket or bubble-wrap to keep things still and silent. It’s no issue on smooth tarmac, but the rattling is something to consider when packing if you’re riding rough gravel.

Like any bar-mounted accessory, you will also need to think about what else may be in the way. For example, many out-front computer, camera, and light mounts might interfere with the Bar Bag, and you’ll have to get creative for cycling events that require a front number plate.

Larger items, such as this camera, can be a fiddle to remove.

When it came time to use my camera, I found the zipper and rigid plastic frame made for a slim opening that was tight enough that I preferred to come to a stop before attempting to pull it out. No doubt, my camera pushes the size limits, and slimmer items are much less a fiddle to get in and out. Accessing small items from the side pockets was without issue, even when unclipping the holding strap and grabbing a phone on the move.

If you are carrying anything prone to weather damage, keep in mind that this bag isn’t waterproof. The plastic frame will ward off a light shower, but the zipper and sides will leak through during heavy precipitation. For this, I kept my camera sealed in a large zip-lock bag for where rain and water crossings were expected.

Bag it

Whether a bar bag is for you is something I can’t answer. What I can answer is that if you don’t mind the new-age look of a bag hanging off the front of your bars, and seek a little extra carrying capacity, the Ornot Bar Bag is a super high-quality item with plenty of practicality. Its simple form factor has some practical limitations, but it does exactly what it claims to do, it’s nicely made, looks pretty good, and is of sufficiently high quality to justify its asking price.

Mounted and ready to use. The bar bag is intentionally slim so as not to hinder access to the drops.

Small loops are included on the front for attaching other items. I didn’t find much use for them myself, but YMMV.

The four-litre capacity doesn’t sound like much on paper, but a look inside reveals that it actually can go quite far.

The Ornot Bar Bag is a simple accessory that does just what it needs to.

The exterior pockets are designed to hold small items, including a phone.

The bag may be made by Rickshaw Bag Works, but the design belongs to Ornot.

The tether cord is long enough for plenty of versatility. Just be careful of paintwork, and use tape where required.

The Velcro straps easily adjust to fit nearly any handlebar shape.

Looking from the side, the small Bar Bag doesn’t protrude far beyond the bars.

The zipper pull is reflective and the zipper is from YKK. It’s all quality stuff.

The post Ornot Bar Bag review: Storage for the everyday ride appeared first on CyclingTips.

French-Canadian brand Louis Garneau might not immediately spring to mind when you think about top-tier road shoes. However, they’re no newcomer to the space, having catered to the market since the late ’80s. The Course Air Lite II is Garneau’s newest top-tier road offering, and with a long list of innovative features, it won a Gold Award at Eurobike 2017. Most notably, the shoes are built with neat expansion zones to cater to a variety of foot shapes.

A long list of features

While most premium shoe offerings aim to conquer width issues through multiple last options and/or soft and malleable uppers, Garneau uses a fresh approach called X-Comfort Zone, which places a stretchy panel around the base of the small toe – a common point of irritation. Between this, and a perforated panel on the medial side, Louis Garneau claims that the Air Lite IIs can accommodate foot widths from B to D+, all with the same last.

Otherwise, the Air Lite IIs are fairly standard pro-level road shoes, albeit with a few neat features.

The arch area is built with a “Power Zone” panel designed to prevent the foot collapsing inward while pedalling. In the simplest sense, it’s a small plastic insert that adds shape and support to the upper. The heel is given a similar supporting structure, with a molded band wrapped around the plastic heel cup. Inside, the heel cup is shaped with a deep pocket, and is lined with a a grippy directional fabric.

I first came across this so-called cat’s-tongue material on premium Shimano shoes over a decade ago, and it has become a popular method for heel retention since. Where many brands use it simply on the back of the heel, Garneau uses it to surround the whole back of the foot.

Two Boa IP1 micro-adjust dials are used on each shoe, and the fabric wire guides are hidden on the inside of the upper — there’s no plastic to be found here. A generously padded tongue helps eliminate pressure points.

Ventilation is a big part of the Air Lite IIs, and there’s more going on than the immediately obvious mesh panels above the toes and perforations in the microfibre upper. The hollow carbon sole uses Garneau’s patented Ergo Air design, channeling air from the ports below the toes, beneath the cleat, and then back out through vents behind the forefoot.

The innersoles offer interchangeable arch support.

Inside is Garneau’s “Ergo Air Transfo 3D” insole, which includes three interchangeable foam wedges that work in tandem with the carbon sole’s subtle raised shaping to provide tunable arch support. In addition to the Coolmax inner soles which offer maximum airflow for summertime use, there’s a second winter pair included, built with a solid base that blocks the sole vents.

The Air Lite IIs are available in sizes from EU38 to EU48, with half-sizes available between EU40.5 and EU46.5. My sample EU42.5 weighs 469g without inner soles, or 510g with the summer option. They retail for US$370 / £290 / AU$N/A.

How’s the fit?

The black panel is a stretch zone for what’s commonly a problematic fitment spot. It effectively allows the shoe to act as if it’s a wider fit, but only when necessary.

Slipping on the Air Lite IIs reveals a somewhat narrow fit overall, with the ball of the foot feeling snugger than regular-fit Specialized S-Works, Shimano S-Phyre or Giro Empire shoes. However, while it may feel narrower, the expansion zones mean the shoe simply stretches where it would otherwise feel like you were being pinched.

As someone with feet on the narrow side of average (in Australia), the shoe conforms without giving a feeling of excess space, nor uncomfortable tightness. I have long toes and the outside of the toe box tapers a little too suddenly, meaning my pinky toe gently (it’s not uncomfortable) bumps the edge of the toe protector that sits just forward of the stretchy X-Comfort Zone panel. At the heel, it’s tighter-feeling than a Shimano but not nearly as restrictive as a Specialized. I like it.

I often fit an EU43 with a bit of wiggle room to spare, and I often find many EU42.5s can be a little touch and go. In this case, I was told Garneau shoes run slightly long and that’s certainly backed by how my EU42.5 samples fit. They run approximately half a size longer than a Shimano or Giro.

Dialing in the fit further, I settled on the medium arch wedges, providing a similar feeling to a green Specialized inner sole.

Pedalling circles

I got along well with the Air Lite IIs, experiencing no discomfort or irritation during my testing. The snug – yet yielding – fit gives a performance feel to the shoes, and they feel wonderfully supportive under power. There are certainly lighter shoes available, but the Air Lite II’s are suitably competitive.

Most shoes with vented soles provide a place for air to come in, but not go out. The soles on the Louis Garneau Air Lite II shoes, however, have proper flow-through channels.

Dropping your heels exposes the sole vents to the wind and rewards you with a sudden burst of air flow. It’s like turning on the air conditioning, but it shows the ventilation isn’t optimised to suck in air if pedaling with a toes-down style. Thankfully, the mesh panels above the toes are still effective when the sole ports aren’t, and together there’s enough ventilation to keep your feet dry. When the cold front hits, swapping in the winter foot beds certainly makes a difference, especially as a mid-season option.

Like any top-tier race shoe, the Air Lite II is very stiff with no noticeable flex. However, those flow-through air channels in the hollow carbon sole are not without compromise. The obvious downside is the increase in stack height beneath the cleat. Admittedly, except for the very subtle difference in resulting saddle height, it’s not something that bothered me, but regardless, higher stack naturally comes with less stability, at least in theory.

Getting the shoes on and off is super easy with the Boa IP1 dials, which release completely with a quick pop. These dials are the same as what’s used on other premium shoes, such as Shimano S-Phyre RC9, Fizik Infinito R1, and many others. They allow for easy micro-adjustments in either direction, made simpler on the move thanks to the grippy material on the dial’s outer edge. The Air Lite II’s somewhat traditional tongue can occasionally get pinched between the upper when putting the shoes on, but all is well if you just push it in while fastening the shoe.

There’s a generous amount of fore-aft cleat adjustment, but the markings are basic.

The cleat inserts are titanium to save a few grams, but there’s a noticeable dearth of printed markings. The Air Lite IIs offer just simple fore-aft and side cleat markings, the latter barely visible with a Shimano SPD-SL cleat installed. It’s a stark contrast to many other premium shoes which offer multiple angle markings for easier setup and adjustments.

Louis Garneau hasn’t been shy about marking the rest of the shoe, however. All the technology is clearly marked, with “X-Comfort Zone” (the stretchy zone at the ball of the foot), “HRS-400” (the heel retention), and “Power Zone” (reinforced instep) logos all printed on the upper of each shoe. While the text is only small, it’s an element that still looks a bit cheesy. I’d rather a cleaner aesthetic with little more than the Garneau brand visible. Certainly, Garneau could learn from the latest Specialized or Shimano offerings in this regard.

Sticking to the aesthetics, I learned to love the “look at me!” yellow color option with subtle reflective details at the heel, especially given the science that supports the notion of improved safety when moving limbs are outfitted with contrasting colours. However, the shoes are also available in black, orange, or white. The glossy microfibre material is easy to keep clean, but it didn’t take long to spoil the front of the toe by walking; the tread material could certainly wrap around that area a little more. Despite the cosmetic damage, walking in the Air Lite IIs is about average for a performance road shoe, with the hard plastic heel grippers and toe tread feeling secure on tiles. The heel tread is replaceable, too.

The outer layer of the toe edge on my test shoes may have chipped away, but underneath is a reinforced toe guard, which provides a surprising amount of protection for a road shoe. Assuming you ignore the risk of aesthetic damage, the shoe is built tough, and seems sure to provide a long service life.

One width fits most

In the end, the innovative fitting solutions leave me somewhat divided. On one foot, allowing expandable width is really quite smart for riders on the edge of sizing, or riders whose effective foot size changes with sock choice and temperature. But on the other foot, I can’t help but feel it’s reminiscent of a budget one-size-fits-all helmet, where more premium options can afford to offer more specific and tailored size options. And more to the point, fancy stretchy panels aside, they’re still a pretty narrow shoe.

That said, CyclingTips US technical editor James Huang has also been using the Air Lite II shoes, and he found them to be very helpful with the small bunions he has at the base of each small toe, so your experience may vary.

Given I have a narrow foot, I really enjoyed using these shoes, and they have a lot going for them. The ventilation from the hollow sole design is noticeably effective, and the shoe holds the foot snug and offers no signs of energy loss. Likewise, I found the expansion zones, to an extent, work as claimed and offer a comfortable fit. The Air Lite II is one of the best shoes I’ve used, however they fall shy of pushing my favourite off the perch.

The Course Air Lite II shoes are new for 2019.

The style has an obvious Euro flair, which is hardly a bad thing.

The microfibre upper is perforated to enhance airflow, but most of the cooling is done via the clever channelled sole design.

The Boa wires are neatly looped beneath the upper, and nylon webbing is used for the wire guides instead of hard plastic. It makes for a softer feel, but riders that like their shoes especially tight might also find that the nylon webbing isn’t stiff enough to keep adjacent eyelets from being pulled toward each other.

The Power Zone. It’s effectively a supporting plastic rib that’s designed to prevent the foot from collapsing inward.

Reflective details are placed on the heel. The moulded heel retention band helps provide more support while pedalling.

Grippy “cat’s tongue” material lines the entire rear area of the shoe, extending all the way forward past the ankle.

The heel tread is replaceable, with the hidden bolts accessible from the inside.

These soles are seriously vented.

Two sets of inner soles are provided with the Air Lite IIs, one for summer and one for winter.

The summer (white) inner soles are generally perforated, while the winter (black) versions are solid.

Three sets of wedge inserts are provided for tunable arch support.

In addition to the inner sole and wedge choices, the shoes include this snazzy carry bag.

The post Garneau Course Air Lite II shoe review: One shoe, multiple widths appeared first on CyclingTips.

Supported by

What good is a pair of road cycling shoes without pedals to go with them? In this third round of CT Recommends, we take a look at what CT staffers are using for road pedals.

Ultimately, there really are only four main players when it comes to road-oriented, three-hole pedal systems: Shimano, Look, Speedplay, and Time. There are others to consider, such as Keywin and Coombe, but you’ll be hard pressed to find any of these alternatives in your local bunches. Given this, it shouldn’t be too surprising to see that our team’s preferences are split amongst the mainstream brands. Many of us have used many others, but we retain our go-to choices. Read on to learn more about our personal choices, and why we all went that way.

Road pedal basics

Mountain bike pedals have to be engineered with a broader approach that more evenly prioritises both on-bike and off-bike use. Road pedals, on the other hand, have the luxury of a far more narrowly focused approach. After all, it’s unlikely you’ll need to walk far when you’re out on a road ride, and so there’s greater emphasis on foot support, stability, and security. Road pedals also aim to keep you closer to the pedal axle for better biomechanical efficiency, they’re shaped for improved cornering clearance, and as always in the road world, weight and aerodynamics are often considered in high regard.

The topic of road versus mountain bike pedals is a hotly debated one and is something we plan to revisit in near time. Until then, here are our picks.

Our favourite road pedals

Shimano SPD-SL

Shimano’s SPD-SL system has remained fundamentally unchanged for many years. Each new generation of pedals typically only receives minor improvements, often to slightly reduce weight.

Shimano’s SPD-SL system is the clear favourite amongst our team, with US tech editor James Huang, CyclingTips founder Wade Wallace, roving reporter Dave Everett, Australia senior editor Matt de Neef, US editor-in-chief Neal Rogers, and myself all going this route.

SPD-SL pedals are much like Shimano’s groupsets: reliable, functional, easy to use, readily available, and without significant cost. As I’ve covered in my review of Shimano Dura-Ace R9100 pedals, Shimano is simply the best once you factor in all-out durability and dependability. They’re not the lightest or most adjustable, but they just work. Adding to their popularity is the fact that they’ve often been included as standard equipment on many entry-level road bikes.

Even better, those attributes hold true throughout nearly the entire SPD-SL range. For example, the PD-R550 is simply the best budget road pedal going; spending more earns you lower weights and improved bearings, but essentially no difference in stability, security, or longevity. The top-end Dura-Ace pedal does offer a lower stack height and increased clearance angle, thanks to its slimmer bearing design, but it’s a minor advantage that not many will consider to be important.

Add in the relatively low price, widespread availability, and decent durability of the large plastic cleat, and Shimano also set the benchmark for running costs. The cleat’s generously wide platform and softer co-molded contact points even make it far better to walk in than you’d expect, even decent to walk in, even on those dreaded tiled cafe floors. Other makes have sought to catch up in this regard, but SPD-SL still remains the best option in that respect.

On paper, Shimano pedals aren’t the best at any one thing. However, they’ve proven their place in the real world.

While some of the team arrived to Shimano pedals from their first road bikes, others got here through issues or failure elsewhere. For example, Neal recalls his break-up with Speedplay vividly.

“I got sick of them clogging up with dirt. There was one specific ride; I remember it clearly. I forgot to pee before I left the house, was out riding on local dirt roads, pulled into the first porta potty, saw that the ground was muddy, and had a decision to make: unclip and risk clogging up the cleat, or continue riding and hold my bladder. I refused to have my bladder held hostage by my equipment. I unclipped, got off, peed, and could not clip in for the remainder of the ride. It wasn’t the first time something like that had happened, but it was the last straw. When I got home, I ordered three sets of Shimano pedals. Haven’t switched back since.”

Wade’s move to Shimano is similar to that of Neal’s, but for a different reason.

“I used to use Speedplay and still think they are the best pedals in the business, but they failed me so many times (three catastrophic failures in big races/events), admittedly because of my lack of maintenance. I switched to Shimano, which have been flawless ever since.”

Personally, I’m in a similar boat. I used to swear by Look pedals, but the stability of earlier Keo versions would quickly degrade due to pedal body wear. This issue is now fixed, but Look’s bearing durability and serviceability doesn’t hold a candle to Shimano’s. Despite being a weight weenie at heart, I made the decision to have the weight penalty of Shimano and haven’t felt compelled to change since.

Look Keo Blade

The Look Keo Blade has proven a popular and lighter alternative to Shimano pedals. The regular Look Keo is slightly heavier, but offers tension adjustment and more rugged durability.

Look created the clipless road pedal market in 1984, and remain a strong competitor to Shimano, especially by users of other groupsets. The Keo platform – essentially a downsized version of the original Delta format – launched in 2004, and the current Keo Blade faithfully uses the same cleat design that Look debuted 14 years ago, but with a carbon fibre leaf spring in place of a wound steel spring to hold that cleat in place. Replacing that chunk of steel with a thin sliver of carbon fibre leads to an impressively low weight, as low as 248g (including cleats). There’s no traditional tension adjustment as a result, but Look at least offer three different Blade stiffnesses that can be swapped to provide the same functionality.

Interestingly, the Look Keo cleat fitment is the most widely borrowed (copied) of all the systems on the market. If you’re looking at pedals with internal powermeters, they’ll more than likely use the Keo cleat. Likewise, road pedals from the likes of Wellgo, Exustar, HT and Ritchey all use the Keo cleat design too. Part of this wider usage is likely due to Shimano keeping a tight reign on its design, but it also sings praise for how popular the Look system is.

A key figure behind the CyclingTips Emporium, Mitch Wells, is one member who loves the Look Keo Blade.

“I started with (Shimano) 105s that came with my first roadie. When I built a custom bike up for the first time, the Look Keo Blade had just been launched and looked pretty attractive, so I went with the Look Blade Carbon Cromo. I haven’t looked back. The biggest positive changes over Shimano are the solid, loud, and confidence-inspiring clip-in feel and sound. No second guessing if you’ve clipped in or not. My current set has about 14,000km and are still going strong without a single service or bearing replacement.”

CT site developer Josh Kadis shares Mitch’s pedal choice.

“I was skeptical when the Blades first came out a few years ago, but I’ve liked them so far. I’ve used Look or Look-compatible pedals for most of the time I’ve been riding, with a couple of forays into Time and (Shimano) SPD-SL.”

The Keo Blade features a solid carbon fibre leaf spring that snaps the rear jaw of the pedal shut on the cleat. In the event of a direct impact, though, this spring (or the surrounding material) can break.

Caley Fretz is another Look Keo Blade user, but for a very different (and very honest) reason.

“At some point a couple years ago, Look sent over a bunch of pairs and now I have so many it’s easy to keep them on whatever test bikes I have in. Previously my pick was Shimano because they’re bombproof. I have broken a couple of Keos, but I usually break them by groading too hard and smashing the blades on rocks. Basically, I killed them because I’m dumb.”

As happy as Mitch is, he has run into one issue.

“I have had a few weird squeaks coming from the worn metal faceplate, but a drop of chain lube quietens them down for a few months.”

It’s an issue also reported by James, and one that he has remedied in the past by changing to aftermarket cleats from Exustar.

Speedplay Zero

The Zero Stainless is arguably the most popular pedal in Speedplay’s range.

Hailing from the USA, Speedplay take a completely different approach to pedal design then the other three listed. Instead of clipping a solid cleat into a sprung pedal body, Speedplay reverse the system and put the sprung mechanism in the cleat. Doing so affords Speedplay, and its lollipop-like Zero pedals, the clear advantage of dual-sided entry without a cost to cornering clearance.

Many Speedplay users favour the modern aesthetics and low weight that such a minimalist pedal design provides. However, it is worth noting that as a complete system (including cleat), both Look and Time beat Speedplay’s lightest offering in the weight war (sorry Shimano, you come in last). And while on the topic of weight, Stewart Morton of bike fitting company RiderFit.cc warns that a common mistake riders make “is chasing the lightest and usually the most expensive pedal as part of a new bike build. The lighter pedals usually have a shorter spindle (to save weight) and this can have negative effects on knee tracking by creating a stance width that is too narrow for the rider. Common problems, as a result, can present as lateral foot pain, symptoms of iliotibial band syndrome, knee pain, and a lack of power.“

That said, many bike fitters have also long loved the Speedplay system for its adjustability. Four different spindle lengths are available, along with different base plates that afford a huge range of fore-aft adjustability. Speedplay cleats are also the easiest of the four major systems when it comes to compensating for different leg lengths. Only recently has Shimano added a choice in pedal axle lengths (standard or +4mm), and it’s likely Speedplay’s success encouraged such an option.

Australian tech Matt Wikstrom switched from Time to Look for just such a reason.

“My move to Speedplay (about 10 years ago) was all in pursuit of extra cleat adjustment, and it’s something I still prize along with the double-sided entry for the pedals. I use the aluminium 3-hole-adapter baseplate for my cleats because it offers extra fore-aft adjustment and isn’t prone to cracking like the standard plastic adapter baseplate. I’ve found a dry lube works well for the cleat springs, but I always forget to use it as often as I should. I keep using the cleats long after they should have been replaced, which has probably accelerated wear on the pedals, but I’ve still gotten at least a few years before as noticeable rock develops in my pedal stroke.”

The newer Speedplay Aero Walkable cleat has taken the pedal system from being horrible to walk with, to one that’s pretty decent.

There’s no denying that Speedplay has some real benefits, but as Matt states, they’re the highest maintenance option suggested here and are therefore not for everyone. The pedals themselves run on tiny needle bearings and need periodic greasing (easily done with a grease gun). Likewise, as Neal noted, you need to be especially careful of what you step in to prevent fouling the cleat mechanism with debris, and on occasion, it’s suggested to lube the cleats with a dry lube. I remember a bike fitter friend used to say “Speedplay are not a pedal for Sydney”, a reference to the reliability issues that would surface through constant clipping in and out at lights.

Time Xpresso

Time’s Xpresso pedal offers the lightest system weight and the most generous float. It’s also known to be an exceptionally easy system to get in and out of.

While his first preference is Shimano, James did throw in a suggestion for Time pedals. They’re very lightweight, the lower-priced options are very appealing in terms of value for the money, their unique retention system is especially easy to engage, the float is particularly smooth in feel and generous in range, and recent changes to the cleats have made them nearly as good to walk in as Shimano.

Time pedals have historically had issues with bearing durability, though, and while that aspect seems to have improved, it’s still a big unknown. And even more troubling is the fact that they’re technically not user serviceable. While the retaining collar for the axle assembly can be removed at home, the official tools aren’t made available to consumers.

“I’ve been toying with the idea of switching to Time, but still currently prefer Shimano. Time offer smoother float and a lower weight. And the cheap Time pedals are pretty damned good. But I’m not switching until I know the bearings are sufficiently durable.”

Time (pun intended) will tell if these pedals can lure James away from the old faithful.

What road pedal systems have you tried and settled on? What do you wish was different or better?

The post CT Recommends: Best road bike pedals appeared first on CyclingTips.

HJC is not a brand that many cyclists will recognise, but in the world of motorcycling, it is a giant, producing over one million helmets per annum. Now the company has turned its attention to cycling, launching four helmets at Eurobike last year. In this review, Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom takes a look at two of the new helmets, the Ibex and the Furion.

HJC is a Korean company that has been manufacturing motorcycle helmets since 1971. With that kind of experience, it’s fair to say the company understands helmets, and that experience has been underpinned by heavy investment in research and development. Part of that commitment included construction of a wind-tunnel at the company’s Korean headquarters, along with an extensive array of testing equipment for every safety standard.

The company also knows how to sell its wares, distributing millions of helmets worldwide that satisfy a variety of categories. According to HJC, it has been the top-selling brand in the USA since 1992 (on the motorcycle side), and it now holds 20% of the European market. Sponsorship of high-profile competitors and events has also helped raise the profile of the company, which remains a family-run business.

There are some pretty obvious parallels between motorcycling and bicycling, so it’s not really surprising to see that HJC has turned its attention to our sport. In fact, some may ask why it has taken the company so long. HJC seems to have a pretty clear strategy for its new business, because it has chosen to focus on road cycling almost exclusively, and in particular, the high-performance end of the market. To this end, the company is sponsoring Lotto Soudal for three seasons (2018-2020), and feedback from the team is likely to provide critical input for the design of future products.

Two of the road helmets from HJC’s new catalogue, the aero-prioritised Furion, show here in pink, and the breezier Ibex, in black and gold.

All three of the road helmets in HJC’s current catalogue feature in-mould construction with an internal skeleton to keep the shell from breaking apart upon impact. Weights are also low, and air channels are used to help with cooling and comfort, but the balance between ventilation and aerodynamic performance varies with each model. At one end of the spectrum there is the breezy H-Sonic that has 24 vents; at the other end, there is the sleeker Furion with 15 vents; and in between, there is the Goldilocks-blend, dubbed the Ibex, that has 16 vents.

Of those three helmets, it is the Furion and the Ibex that Lotto Soudal riders have been using this season, which also happen to be the candidates supplied for this review, thanks to HJC’s Australian distributor, Vivelo Sports.

The Furion: a helmet optimised by wind-tunnel testing

HJC is quick to point out the importance of having an in-house wind tunnel when designing its new helmets, especially the Furion. Air flow over the helmet was optimised to reduce drag, and according to HJC’s data, the Furion bests three unnamed aero competitors by 4-7% at 45km/h, and 6-7% at 60km/h. At face value, that makes for an attractive marginal gain, but it must be remembered that won’t translate directly to the rider, because the head is just part of the total drag. It’s also important to note that direct comparisons of aero results aren’t always as straightforward as they might seem, even if those other competitors were identified.

HJC’s data for the performance of the Furion in its wind tunnel against three unnamed aero competitors at (A) 45km/h and (B) 60km/h.

HJC’s engineers also paid attention to the flow of air through the helmet, supposedly exploiting the Venturi effect to accelerate airflow through the helmet so as to maximise the cooling efficiency of the front vents. According to HJC’s data, the Furion offers more exhaust ventilation than its aero competitors, though it’s unclear how that translates to the comfort of the rider.

The rest of the features of the Furion are familiar by contemporary standards: adjustable occipital cradle, adjustable strap splitters at the ears, and padding infused with anti-microbial silver salts.

There are just five modest vents at the front of the Furion. According to HJC, some internal channelling and the Venturi effect help make the most of the airflow on offer.

The Furion has another vent on each side of the helmet that makes it look a bit like a jet fighter, plus, it works.

Three pieces of polycarbonate are moulded into the foam shell of the Furion.

The exhaust vents are modest, too.

The pink/black version of the Furion reminds me of the Team Telekom era.

The Ibex: more air for your hair

While the Ibex boasts just one more vent than the Furion in terms of total number, those vents are much more conspicuous and stretch from the front to the rear of the helmet. According to HJC’s marketing material, wind-tunnel testing also figured in the development of the Ibex, but I couldn’t get any information on how the drag of the Ibex compares to the Furion.

The Ibex clearly promises better ventilation than the Furion. Once again, HJC points to the importance of the Venturi effect and internal air channels to ventilation, however the company makes no specific claims.

Like the Furion, the Ibex features an adjustable occipital cradle and strap splitters, however neither are as sophisticated as those found on the Furion. There are just three options for the position of the occipital cradle while the strap splitters depend on friction to stay in place. As for the helmet’s padding, it also features silver for its anti-microbial properties.

The Ibex is more open to the breeze than the Furion.

The vents reach from front to back with internal channels and small exhaust vents to encourage cooling.

The Ibex, like the Furion, has an internal skeleton for reinforcing the foam shell.

The polycarbonate shell is moulded into the foam core of the helmet.

HJC used a wind tunnel to optimise the design of the Ibex as well as the Furion.

Two helmets, two different fits

HJC made use of 3D laser scanning for shaping the fit of its helmets. Over 200 people were scanned — comprising men and women from a variety of ethnic groups — to create what the company describes as “the ultimate fit.” The result is a choice of three sizes for the Furion and the Ibex: XS/S (54-56cm), M/L (57-59cm), and XL/XXL (60-62cm).

Surprisingly, the fit of the Ibex and Furion proved to be quite different. With a head circumference of 58cm, I expected the M/L to fit me, and while that was true for the Ibex, the Furion was too small. Moving up to a XL/XXL, I was able to get my head into the Furion, but it was too wide for my head. Adjusting the occipital cradle did little to improve the fit, so I was left with a helmet that could wobble on my head.

By contrast, the M/L Ibex did not wobble on my head, though I’ve experienced a more comfortable fit with other brands such as Giro and Bell, which better suit my oval head. From what I can tell, HJC’s helmets offer a little less length relative to the width of the helmet, making for a rounder fit. In the case of the Ibex, a little extra length would have been welcome.

The Furion has an adjustable occipital cradle with a simple dial that is easy to find by feel.

The height of occipital cradle of the Furion is adjustable thanks to a simple ratchet strip.

HJC uses silver-impregnated materials for the padding to keep odour at bay.

The Furion has easy-to-adjust strap splitters that lock into place.

The Ibex also has an adjustable occipital cradle, but the adjustment knob is smaller.

Height adjustment is also much simpler on the Ibex, with just three settings.

The Ibex also has simpler splitters that don’t lock into place as securely as on the Furion.

Weight, prices, colours, and accessories

The M/L Ibex sent for review weighed 247g; a Furion in the same size weighed 215g while the next size up (XL/XXL) — which actually fitted me — weighed 243g.

HJC cycling helmets are currently available in Europe, the UK, and throughout Asia as well as Australia and New Zealand. The Furion sells for AU$290/€199/£149 with a choice of up to 10 colours; the Ibex costs a little more at AU$310/€249/£179 with up to eight colours on offer.

Each helmet is supplied with a cloth carry bag and, praise be, a replacement set of pads. The latter is typically overlooked by other brands, which is close to unforgivable for any helmet with a triple-figure asking price. After all, replacement pads are inexpensive and will breath life into a used helmet, but they are often difficult to find via any kind of retailer.

The Furion (left) is a little cheaper than the Ibex (right), but they can both be considered expensive helmets targeted at performance-oriented road cyclists.

Out in the world

Most of the utility and appeal of any helmet rests with the quality of its fit, and in this case, HJC’s helmets failed to win me over. As I’ve mentioned above, the Ibex and Furion appear to be better suited to round heads, and judging from other reviews for each helmet, both can be very comfortable for some individuals.

Both helmets are light on the head and reasonably well-equipped with user-friendly features, though I was a little surprised at how rudimentary the occipital cradle was for the Ibex. There are just three coarse settings for adjusting the height of the cradle compared to 20 for the Furion. The Ibex does offer finer adjustment for the width of the occipital band, although some might find the tiny knob a little fussy to use. As for the strap splitters, I found it easier to adjust the locking clasps on the Furion than the friction buckles on the Ibex.

Leaving the quality of the fit aside, few would be surprised to read that the Ibex offered better ventilation than the Furion. I was testing these helmets during a mild Australian winter, so ventilation wasn’t critical for my comfort. However, I still gravitated towards the Ibex. I could wear it on a daily basis without any areas of heat build up, but I still wouldn’t describe it as a particularly breezy helmet.

HJC’s helmets offer a rounder fit than some other brands. For the Furion, I needed to go up a size, which proved to be too wide for my head.

The arms of my Oakley Radars played well with the Furion.

 

Side-by-side testing with a mid-range Bell Falcon was enough to prove this point. By contrast, airflow through the Furion was much more difficult to detect. I found that heat would build up at the front of the helmet and over my scalp. Meanwhile, the sides of my head remained quite cool and comfortable, though that might have been helped by the loose fit of the helmet.

For the cooler months of the years, the Furion might be tolerable, but in warm-to-hot conditions, I would never be tempted to reach for it. Or the Ibex, for that matter, and HJC seems to acknowledge this, because it has the H-Sonic with even more vents and larger openings in its catalogue.

With a simple brow pad, neither helmet promises much in terms of sweat management. I wasn’t able to challenge either helmet during the review period due to the mild weather conditions, so strictly speaking, this remains untested. However, having experienced just how effective Bell’s new “Sweat Guide” is at keeping the brow dry, anything less is starting to look outdated.

Finally, as far as sunglasses are concerned, I was able to wear a set of Oakley Radars without any interference from either helmet, which is notable given that model’s particularly long arms. Stowage was a different matter, since it wasn’t possible to slide the Radars into front vents of either helmet, so the only option was to wear them on the back of my head. My Radars fitted easily under the rear of the Ibex and the Furion, and they did not interfere with either helmet.

The Ibex was not a great fit for me, either. I found it had a habit of locking onto the bumps on my skull rather than sliding smoothly into place.

No problems with the arms of my sunnies getting stuck under the helmet.

 

Final thoughts

Bicycle helmets have become increasingly sophisticated and there is no sign that innovation in this sector is slowing down (witness Giro’s novel approach to diffusing rotational forces with the design of the Aether). As a newcomer, HJC has a lot of ground to make up before it can be considered an innovator, but at this early stage, the Ibex and Furion are sound offerings that address the major needs of the market.

One obvious weakness is safety, at least in terms of the information that is made publicly available. Now that Virginia Tech/IIHS has started publishing the results of its independent testing, I expect that a four-star rating will add considerably to the value and appeal of any helmet. HJC’s helmets have yet to be assessed by Virginia Tech, so it is too soon to say, but the company has eschewed additional safety features such as MIPS that are likely to help this rating.

Another might be price. Without any innovative features (aside from a set of replacement pads), added safety measures, tangible performance benefits, or a proven track record, HJC’s helmets seem expensive. That statement probably overlooks the effort required to produce not one, but two, sub-250g helmets that meet all of the various safety standards. Nevertheless, shoppers are currently spoilt for choice with what the established brands have to offer, so it is easy to see how the Furion and Ibex will get overlooked until HJC is able to offer more value, either by adding more features or revising its prices.

 

 

 

 

The post HJC helmet review: Ibex versus Furion appeared first on CyclingTips.

After a short hiatus, the iconic Blur nameplate is back in the Santa Cruz lineup, this time as a dedicated XC racing machine designed for chasing finishing lines rather than laughs and grins. Without a doubt, the Blur’s newfound speed and quickness is better suited to competition than any previous iteration has ever been. But as a result, it also loses some of the wider appeal that characterized earlier versions.

A turning point

Few nameplates truly qualify to be labeled as iconic, but the Blur has had such an impact on the Santa Cruz brand that it’d be almost impossible to not label it as such. When the original Blur first debuted in 2002, Santa Cruz was already established as an early pioneer in full-suspension mountain bikes. However, the brand at that point had solely relied on the simplicity of single-pivot designs, with such memorable models as the Tazmon, Heckler, and Superlight.

The Blur (along with Santa Cruz’s first-generation V10 downhill platform) marked the first major use of the then-revolutionary Virtual Pivot Point concept, a design Santa Cruz bought from original inventor Outland, a tiny niche mountain-bike brand that was never able to fully realize the concept’s potential. Mountain-bike rear suspension was arguably still in its infancy in the early 2000s, and so the VPP system of dual short counter-rotating links joining the otherwise-rigid front and rear triangles was truly radical.

The original Santa Cruz Blur was more of an all-around trail bike, and nowhere near as focused on a single discipline as the current model. Photo: Santa Cruz Bicycles.

That original Blur turned out to be wildly successful for its ability to balance pedaling efficiency, bump compliance, and control in a way no other bike that came before could. VPP has undergone multiple revisions since those early days, and though Santa Cruz would continue to offer single-pivot bikes through 2015, the VPP system has come to define the brand.

A less blurry Blur

One of those early Blur offshoots was the racing-focused Blur XC, which would eventually morph into a more advanced carbon-fiber model in 2009. But Santa Cruz walked away from that segment of the market when the Blur XC was discontinued in 2013. It wasn’t until last year that the company decided it was time to come back.

Five years is a long time to be away, but the latest Blur (technically it’s the “Blur 3”) benefits from the break by skipping a lot of the awkward transition period that befell many cross-country bikes in the interim. It’s now far more of a dedicated XC racing machine than ever, sporting 29in wheels (the predecessor rode into the sunset on 26in ones), a lighter and more rigid carbon-fiber frame, and a shorter-travel VPP rear end that is purpose built with a firmer and more efficiency-oriented tune. Previous Blur XC frames offered 105-115mm, but Santa Cruz now caps it at 100mm out back, with both 100mm and 110mm options offered up front.

Santa Cruz’s Virtual Pivot Point suspension design relies on one-piece front and rear triangles that are connected with two short counter-rotating links.

Claimed frame weight on the top-end Blur 3 CC version is just 2,060g (medium size, without shock), and with the almost universal acceptance of 1x drivetrains, Santa Cruz didn’t bother to incorporate front derailleur compatibility, instead adding a second upright on the drive side of the rear triangle for extra rigidity under load.

Geometry-wise, the Blur wholly embraces the new school of thought when it comes to how cross-country bikes should handle.

As compared to most other cross-country racers currently on the market, like the Specialized Epic, Trek Top Fuel, and even the “XXC” Cannondale Scalpel, the Blur has both a longer reach and shorter stack, which allows for an especially aggressive position, especially when used with the racier 100mm-travel fork. Chainstays are notably short at just 432mm across the S-XL size range, and seat tube is fairly upright at 74° in order to place the rider in a more powerful position on steep climbs, while the moderately slack 69° head tube angle slightly mellows out any front-end dartiness.

As a bonus, that more relaxed head tube angle also lengthens the wheelbase, which combines with the low 42mm bottom bracket drop to promote high-speed stability.

Santa Cruz’s lengthy history in the full-suspension market shows in several finer details of the new Blur. The large-diameter aluminum pivot axles use a neat expanding collet design that automatically wedges itself up against the surrounding frame structure to help prevent creaking, for example, and though most of the lines are internally routed for cleanliness, the rear brake cable still runs along the top of the down tube so you don’t have to rebleed the line during removal or installation.

There’s also enough room inside the main triangle for a large-sized water bottle (with an additional mount on the bottom of the frame), a bolt-on plastic guard on the underside of the down tube to protect against rock strikes, and — hallelujah — a standard threaded bottom bracket shell to further help keep things pleasantly silent.

Build kits and options

Santa Cruz offers the Blur as a frame-only (US$3,000 for the lighter-weight Blur CC version), or with a number of complete build kits starting with SRAM’s entry-level Eagle NX groupset and topping out with SRAM XX1 Eagle or Shimano XTR component groups. Santa Cruz’s own Reserve carbon fiber wheels are optional across the board, too, as are “TR” variants that include a slightly longer 110mm-travel fork, a bigger front disc-brake rotor, meatier tires, and an internally routed dropper seatpost.

Prices for the complete builds range from US$3,700/AU$TBC/£3,700/€4,300 to US$9,600/AU$TBC/£8,200/€9,700, with the two lowest-priced options using a slightly heavier frame built with a lower grade of carbon fiber.

SRAM’s new X1 Eagle carbon crankset uses the company’s latest DUB axle design, which is built around a universal 29mm-diameter aluminum spindle that supposedly fits just about every frame on the market, regardless of shell format.

For this review, Santa Cruz sent the SRAM X01 model in cross-country trim, upgraded with the company’s 25mm-wide (internal width) Reserve carbon wheels. Retail price is US$7,600/AU$TBC/£7,000/€8,200, and actual weight for my medium sample is 10.27kg (22.64lb) without pedals, and with the tires set up tubeless — a touch lighter than company claims.

A conundrum

Let me get this out of the way first: Cross-country bikes have gotten a bad rap in recent years — and maybe deservedly so. While it’s certainly true that race bikes from just a few years ago were far too biased toward going up, with little consideration for how they’d perform going down, modern XC bikes (like this Santa Cruz Blur) are far more capable and versatile.

One might even say they’re fun, even if you’re not totally interested in suffering.

A race bike the Blur most certainly is, and its behavior on the trail still adheres faithfully to this mission. Even with the rear shock intentionally inflated slightly lower than manufacturer recommendations, the XC-tuned VPP rear end is highly efficient while pedaling, with very minimal unwanted bob, even on smoother fire roads and pavement. To further stiffen things up, Santa Cruz equips most Blur models (including the one I tested) with a handlebar-mounted remote lever that instantly locks out both the rear shock and fork.

Santa Cruz fits the Blur with a dual remote lockout that simultaneously operates the fork and rear shock. It works as advertised, almost completely eliminating any suspension movement, but it’s debatable how much it’s really needed. The rear suspension is already very efficient on its own, and the suspension remote takes up valuable real estate that could otherwise be used for a dropper-post remote.

“We use a digressive compression tune on this bike, whereas we use the linear tune on our trail bikes,” said Santa Cruz product manager Josh Kissner, referring to the way the rear shock is factory-set to be a little firmer than usual at the beginning of the travel. “This gives it a little more of an XC feel and platform. [The leverage curve] isn’t dramatically different than the Tallboy. I’d say it’s a little better, which is easier to do with shorter travel: less fall in the beginning, a little more rise later on.”

This sort of scenario strikes me as a bit perplexing, however.

Such a pedaling-focused shock tune is usually more desirable when a suspension design is mechanically less efficient — in other words, when the kinematics of the various pivots and linkages doesn’t inherently resist pedal-induced motion. Santa Cruz shouldn’t be limited to that sort of thing given the flexibility of its VPP design, though, and so the combination of what feels to me like a heavy-handed compression damper tune plus a remote lockout on top of that seems like overkill. The standard shock tune provides a sufficiently firm pedaling platform already, at least in my opinion, and if Santa Cruz is insistent on including a remote lockout, I would have preferred a more compliant base tune that provides better suspension performance overall.

Historically, Santa Cruz has built all of its full-suspension bikes (save for dedicated downhill models) with a single upright on the non-driveside joining the seatstay and chainstay, in order to allow room for a front derailleur. Modern drivetrains no longer use front derailleurs, though, so the latest Blur gets the double-upright treatment, too, along with the boost in rear-end rigidity it provides.

Nevertheless, combined with the fantastic rigidity of the front and rear triangles, the aggressive positioning, and the bike’s very low total weight, the Blur is a joy when climbing — not quite like a hardtail, but I suspect that only the most diehard racers will be regularly reaching for that remote when the trail heads upward. Steady, seated climbing ticks by with nary a complaint, and the bike is highly responsive when rising out of the saddle for a steep pitch.

That focus on all-out speed is also evident in the choice of rolling stock. The Maxxis Aspen tires roll as quickly as you’d expect given the minimal tread, and they’re also very light with a claimed weight of just 645g apiece. The relatively generous 2.25in casing width puts a healthy amount of rubber on the ground, though, and at 19-21psi (and on reasonably forgiving dirt), they grip better than you might think. I didn’t suffer any punctures during testing, but riders who regularly find themselves on rocky terrain will want to keep in mind that the minimal tread will provide minimal protection, too.

And yet despite the impressive climbing chops — and even with me slamming the stem and flipping it upside-down for maximum handlebar drop — the Blur is pretty damn fun when it comes time to bomb back down. That firm suspension tune does make for a slightly bouncier feel relative to more softly tuned designs that do a better job of keeping the tire contact patches more firmly adhered to the ground, but given just a little bit of finesse, the Blur is more than capable of blasting even moderately technical descents.

Unlike the rear shock, the differences between the Fox 32 Step-Cast Performance Elite fork and the flagship Factory version are a little more significant. Here, you not only get a simpler black anodized finish on the aluminum stanchion instead of the slippery gold Kashima coating on the Factory edition, but there’s also a simpler Grip damper cartridge inside instead of Fox’s more advanced FIT design. The difference in feel on the trail is a little more obvious on longer-travel forks, but with just 100mm on tap here, few riders will ever feel the need to upgrade.

A big part of this capability is undoubtedly due to the progressive geometry. The tires may slide on occasion, but the more forgiving front end makes it easier to control that slide through the corners, and without making the bike handle like the Titanic. Likewise, the lower bottom bracket provides a more stable feel, and although there’s just 100mm of travel available, it’s well controlled so you’re at least able to make the most of it. Fox’s higher-end Factory suspension components (mid-range bits are fitted here) would help, but the difference would be so subtle that few people would even notice. However, just swapping the front tire for a grippier model would do wonders here.

What would make an even bigger difference is a dropper seatpost. Santa Cruz only includes a dropper post in the TR build kits, which also come with a larger front rotor and knobbier tires. A good dropper would add about 400g or so, but the positive effects on overall maneuverability can hardly be overstated. Even many World Cup racers — the most weight-conscious of all mountain-bike disciplines — are now using dropper posts, and not because of convenience. It’s because they help riders go faster overall as courses are becoming more technically demanding.

Unfortunately, Santa Cruz’s decision to run stock remote lockout levers for the front and rear suspension complicates matters, since there’s no real estate on the handlebar left for a dropper remote. TR builds swap the lever-type suspension remote for RockShox’s new GripShift-like control, but anyone starting with a standard Blur would have to add that separately. Removing the standard remote altogether isn’t an option, either, as the rear shock defaults to the locked-out mode when the cable is disconnected.

Parts, schmarts

Aside from the suspension remote, I have few complaints with the rest of the spec.

The SRAM X01 Eagle 1×12 drivetrain is well proven at this point, and offers a very usable 10-50T range out back that should satisfy the needs of even moderately fit riders. Chain retention is a non-issue with SRAM’s refined narrow-wide chainring tooth profiles and the clutch-equipped rear derailleur, and especially so given the intended application. Shifts aren’t quite Shimano-esque in terms of smoothness, but that’s to be expected; it works nonetheless.

There’s a good reason why SRAM has taken firm hold of the 1x mountain bike drivetrain market. Shift performance of the XO1 Eagle rear end is precise and consistent, and chain security is more than ample for cross-country applications.

Braking duties are handled by SRAM’s Level TLM hydraulic discs, which use the same dual-piston calipers as the company’s road groupsets, along with a pared-down lever design that saves weight relative to the more trail-oriented Guide family. Lever action is reasonably light and snappy, and overall power is very good, as is the level of fine control on loose ground. For most XC riders, the standard 160mm-diameter front and rear rotors will be just fine, and it was only in the wet that the brakes offered up any sort of audible protest.

When it comes to wheels, I’d strongly recommend that prospective buyers with sufficient funds opt for the Reserve carbon wheel upgrade. They’re lighter than the standard DT Swiss aluminum wheels, yes, and the DT Swiss 240s hubs (Chris King and Industry Nine hubs are also available) should also be very durable long-term. But what’s more appealing to me here is the generous lifetime warranty that Santa Cruz includes with the rims.

“In short, we cover all breakages, regardless of defect, and we replace the entire wheel, not just the rim,” said Santa Cruz Marketing Manager Brian Bernard. “It’s a pain to have to deal with bent spokes/new nipples/getting the wheel rebuilt, so we just ship a new one out so that folks can get back to riding. If someone were to back over their wheel with a truck, or melt it with their exhaust, we’d do rock-bottom, crash-replacement kind of pricing.”

Spoke holes are reinforced with additional layers of carbon fiber to prevent pull-through.

I even asked Bernard for further clarification on the policy, specifically about JRA-type incidents where a rider merely cracked a rim after hitting a rock on a trail, and when there’s no specific rim “defect” to speak of.

“We’d replace it [free of charge],” he said. “We definitely don’t encourage people to ride like Danny MacAskill did in our launch video, but nailing a rock and breaking your wheel happens, and we don’t want anyone to miss a ride because of our product. Our intent was to make it as simple as possible for the customer, and to stand behind products we make that may well break under normal use. Everyone’s hit a too-sharp rock at some point.”

In short, those wheels are more expensive initially, but they potentially represent a better overall value in the long run, and even more peace of mind than what you’d usually get with aluminum. And the fact that they’re pleasantly light, durable, and not overly rigid is a nice bonus, too.

www.santacruzbicycles.com

Aside from the name and basic suspension design, the latest Blur bears little functional resemblance to the original.

My mid-range sample came equipped with a Fox Float DPS Elite rear shock, which is functionally identical to the flagship model with the exception of the standard anodized finish on the shock shaft. In theory, this rear shock runs with a little more friction than the Kashima-coated shaft on the Factory version. In reality, almost no one will be able to tell the difference.

All of the pivot hardware on the Santa Cruz Blur uses a clever expanding collet design to help prevent creaking. As the bolts are tightened, the surrounding collars expand outward into the surrounding carbon structure to more securely lock them in place.

Riders who limit themselves to drier conditions aren’t likely to have any issues with the lower suspension link. But for everyone else, the flat shape and nearly horizontal orientation make it a magnet for mud and debris.

Santa Cruz equips the Blur frame with a threaded bottom bracket shell. This may be a few grams heavier than press-fit options, but the silence that results (not to mention the ease of service) is indeed golden.

Cable routing is a mix of internal and external, with the rear brake running along the top of the down tube so there’s no bleeded required during installation.

The soft plastic cable ports do a good job of keeping things from rattling.

The dual suspension remote makes for a cluttered cockpit, even with the single-ring drivetrain and the lack of a dropper seatpost.

The soft plastic down tube guard protects against rocks kicked up by the front wheel. A second bottle mount is situated just above this on the underside of the down tube, but anyone that regularly uses trails frequented by cows, horses, or other animals should do so at their own peril.

The 10-50T spread on the SRAM Eagle XG-1295 cassette provides plenty of range for both steep climbs and fast descents.

SRAM’s narrow-wide chainring design does a fantastic job of keeping the chain engaged over rough terrain. Dropped chains simply aren’t a concern.

SRAM’s new Level hydraulic disc brakes have a similar feel in your fingers as the Guide range, but with less power and less weight. This Level TLM version lacks the carbon lever blade and titanium hardware of the Ultimate version, but we’re talking a difference of just a handful of grams here.

The 160mm-diameter rotors provide sufficient power for XC racing applications. For more bite, you could easily upgrade to a 180mm setup instead just by purchasing a new rotor and an adapter kit for the caliper.

The aluminum spider on the disc rotor helps save a few grams. It also makes it less prone to warping relative to all-steel rotors.

Santa Cruz offers its Reserve carbon wheels as an upgrade on the XO1-equipped Blur. They’re light and impressively rigid, but perhaps even more appealing is the generous warranty and replacement policy Santa Cruz provides for them.

The Maxxis Aspen tires are fast-rolling and lightweight. Riders who regularly find themselves on loose terrain will invariably want something a little meatier, though.

Syntace claims its P6 HiFlex carbon seatpost provides a smoother ride than conventional carbon posts. But given the 31.6mm diameter, any difference is wholly imperceptible.

There’s enough room on a medium Blur frame for a large-sized water bottle.

The standard ESI silicone foam rubber grips are comfy and lightweight.

The steerer tube is cut at the factory with plenty of flexibility for adjusting bar height. Much of the XC racing crowd will likely just slam the stem, though.

The post Santa Cruz Blur long-term review: A sharper focus, but more limited appeal appeared first on CyclingTips.

It has been two years since Chain Reaction Cycles launched its in-house wheel brand, Prime, to sell low-cost wheelsets to the mainstream market. Prime’s first offerings included a suite of carbon wheelsets designed to emulate, rather than directly compete with, more expensive brands. The hope was that enthusiasts would be prepared to forego innovation and brand recognition so long as the price was right.

Needless to say, Prime found a willing market for its wheelsets, and now the brand has taken the next step to keep pace with innovation in this space by updating its carbon clinchers with wider rims. In this review, Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom takes a look at two wheelsets from Prime’s new BlackEdition collection, and finds the new rims have a lot to offer buyers.

When Prime launched its carbon wheelsets a couple of years ago, it marked a new phase in the life of composite wheels. The technology responsible for cutting-edge high-end exotica had finally trickled down the market tree to give rise to a new category: the entry-level carbon wheelset. But it was not the relatively low price that was unique to Prime; online shoppers had been enjoying cheap Chinese-made rims for some time. It was the appearance of the wheels in the mainstream market that was most notable.

The 28mm, 38mm, and 50mm carbon rims originally picked by Prime were all open-mould products that were tested in-house and on the road before the new wheels were launched. The company wasn’t just dipping its toe, though, because on top of three rim profiles, there was a choice of tubeless-ready or tubular versions to suit both rim- and disc-brakes. Buyers had almost everything they could ask for at a very competitive price, including home delivery and a two-year warranty.

We reviewed two carbon wheelsets from Prime’s catalogue soon after its launch: the RP-38 carbon clincher road disc wheelset and the RP-50 carbon clinchers for rim brakes. As entry-level offerings, the two wheelsets had plenty of appeal, and they even managed to deliver some of the performance of higher-priced wheelsets.

From the outset, Prime’s carbon rims were obviously narrow in terms of both internal and external width, but given their position in the market, this was something that was easy to forgive. These wheels were never designed to compete at the same level as higher-priced and more aerodynamic products, after all, so there was no great need for a wider rim.

Nevertheless, Prime was obviously well aware of changing consumer expectations, which is why its carbon clincher rims have been re-designed — in-house, no less — to yield the new BlackEdition wheelsets in its catalogue.

There is a choice of five clincher profiles in the BlackEdition range: 28mm, 38mm (right), 50mm (left), 65mm, and 85mm.

Going wide for 2018 (and beyond)

The current trend towards wider road rims started about 10 years ago, driven largely by the search for aerodynamic gains. The late wheel aerodynamics guru Steve Hed found that a wider rim bed made for a wider and rounder tyre profile that was better suited to semi-toroidal rim shapes. However, that change in tyre shape also had remarkable benefits for the behaviour of the tyre, allowing for lower inflation pressures, greater compliance and grip, and even less rolling resistance, than the same tyre on a narrower rim.

In the time since then, wider tyres have become de rigueur for road cycling, and even wider rim profiles were needed to maintain clean aerodynamics at the leading edge of the wheel. Comfort and grip were further improved with the new rims without detracting from rolling resistance. So, for the rider, it has been a win-win-win. The only practical drawback is a need for more frame and fork clearance, which traditionally, has been limited for road bikes.

Frame and fork manufacturers have managed to catch up to the growing enthusiasm for wider rims and tyres, helped enormously by the introduction of disc brakes (and to a lesser extent, direct-mount rim callipers). That doesn’t mean all current road bikes are able to accommodate tyres and rims that are 27mm-wide or more, but the proportion has been increasing.

Prime’s carbon clincher rims were originally 25mm-wide with a 16.5mm bed. That was a modest increase compared to the 15mm rim beds that dominated the market at the time, but the industry has moved on, and now the leading carbon wheel brands favour rim beds that are at least 19mm-wide.

Prime’s carbon clinchers are now wider with a 19.5mm rim bed. The branding is more subdued, too.

With an external width of 27.5mm and a 19.5mm rim bed, Prime’s BlackEdition rims now fit comfortably within the new norm. The rims still sport the same U-shaped profile, tubeless-compatibility, and finish, as the originals. According to Prime, the increase in width has improved the aerodynamics of the new wheels, however the brand does not supply any data in support of this, nor are there any specific claims to that effect.

As for the brake track — an important consideration for any carbon wheelset that will be used with rim brakes — that, too, remains unchanged with a wide, staggered design that promises to direct heat away from the tyres and into the rim itself. Two pairs of Prime’s proprietary brakes pads are supplied with each wheelset, and the company strongly recommends buyers make use of them for the best results in both dry and wet conditions.

Build, weight, price and options

Ignoring the change in rim width, Prime’s BlackEdition 38 and 50 clinchers are essentially identical to the RP-38 and RP-50 wheelsets that preceded them. The hubs, spoke count, and spoke lacing patterns have all been carried over to the new wheels, and out of the box, they are taped ready for tubeless tyres.

Prime has moved to a new spoke supplier, though. Where once Sapim CX-Ray straight-pull bladed stainless steel spokes were used to build the wheels, every spoke now comes from DT Swiss. The front wheel and non-driveside of the rear wheel make use of DT Swiss’s lightest bladed spoke, the Aerolite, while the thicker and heavier Aero Comp is used for the driveside of the rear wheel.

The Prime-branded hubs continue to be supplied by Novatec. The hub shells are made from 7075 aluminium alloy with cartridge bearings used throughout. The end-caps press onto the front axle and thread onto the rear axle, however there is no pre-load adjustment for the bearings. Pulling down the hubs is quick and easy, and if spares or replacements are ever needed, Prime maintains an online catalogue of spares with convenient links to Chain Reaction Cycles to make a purchase.

The front hub has a small axle and bearings to keep the shell slender.

The axle caps are easy to remove. Just grab one…

… and pull.

The front hub bearings are positioned deep within the shell.

The rear hub has a bigger axle and bearings to contend with more weight and load.

The axle caps thread onto the rear axle. A couple of 5mm hex keys are required to unwind them.

Note the larger hex key fitting that allows the axle to be secured so the cap on the opposite end can be removed.

A weather shield adds an extra layer of protection for the bearing on the left side of the hub.

The right axle cap must be removed before the freehub mechanism can be serviced.

The whole body slides easily off the axle.

The drive ring that sits in the hub body has 26 teeth, which translates to a 13.8° engagement speed.

The freehub body has four pawls with a spring-clip that wraps around them.

The front wheel is laced with 20 spokes in a radial pattern, while the rear wheel has 24 spokes laced in a two-cross pattern. The latter makes no compensation for the offset of the right hub flange, so the spoke tension on the left side of the wheel is significantly lower (~60kgf) than the right (~130kgf). This is quite distinct from those rear wheels that employ triplet lacing (e.g. Fulcrum’s Racing 3 and Racing Zero or Shimano’s new C40-TL) to alleviate (or eliminate) this differential and reduce the rate of spoke fatigue.

In the short term, this is not a feature that pays dividends, and for many users, the quality of the spokes — which in this case, is very high — will be enough to contend with many rounds of loading and unloading without failing. There is still a greater risk that the non-drive spokes will come loose, though, and the wheel may need more attention to keep it true. For the mid-to-long term, heavy loads will take a toll on the spokes, leading to premature breakage.

The BlackEdition wheels live up to their name with a stealthy finish and subtle branding. It’s a pleasing change from Prime’s original branding that will suit a wide range of bikes; better yet, once installed, these wheels will look like an exotic upgrade at a fraction of the cost.

The BlackEdition 38 wheelset sent for review by Wiggle weighed 1,509g (front, 664g; rear, 845g) with rim tape, while the BlackEdition 50 weighed 1,614g (front 716g; rear, 898g), also with tape. For the latter, that’s an extra ~100g compared to the original RP-50 wheelset, demonstrating the impact of the wider rims and the heavier-duty driveside spokes on the total weight.

With that said, both weights are still quite good, especially considering the asking price. In fact, a 1,600g wheelset with a 50mm-tall rim (like Campagnolo’s original Bora) was once considered a technological marvel; now, it’s a relatively affordable mainstream product.

The valve stem hole is moulded so that the lockring for a tubeless valve fits neatly against the rim.

The BlackEdition 38 and 50 clinchers are available in two versions: one to suit rim brakes, and another for disc brakes. There’s also another three rim heights available — 28mm, 65mm and 85mm — making for an impressive suite of clinchers from which to choose. Prime also has another four BlackEdition rim-brake wheelsets for tubular tyres — 38, 50, 65, and 85 — however the external width of those rims remains at 25mm.

In every case, the wheels are supplied with a Shimano/SRAM-compatible freehub body, four spare spokes and nipples, rim tape and tubeless valves, and a two-year warranty. In addition, a pair of quick-release skewers and two pairs of brake pads are included with the rim-brake version of the wheels; the disc-brake version is supplied with a collection of end-caps and axles to suit quick-release skewers, 12mm thru-axles (front and rear), and a 15mm thru-axle (front only).

Wiggle’s (and Chain Reaction Cycles’) current asking price for the BlackEdition 38 is AU$1,305/US$1,035/£945. The BlackEdition 50 wheelset is a little more expensive, selling for AU$1,350/US$1,080/£990. That price does not include delivery, and it may not include local taxes and duties. For Australian buyers at least, there won’t be any extra costs. GST is included in that price, the wheels qualify for free delivery, and Wiggle/Chain Reaction Cycles will pay the local import duty as well.

Finally, it is worth noting that the BlackEdition clinchers have a rider weight limit of 100kg.

Easy to use and a joy to ride

Getting to know a new wheelset is not a complicated process, and when it performs exactly as expected, it’s easy to take it for granted after just a few rides. This is exactly what happened with the BlackEdition 38 and 50 clinchers: they were immediately inviting and easy to use, as well as trouble-free from the moment I opened each box.

I’ve been using tubeless tyres for several years, but I still brace myself when it comes to installing them for the first time on unfamiliar wheels. In this instance, I had two pairs of Hutchinson’s 25c Fusion 5 Performance tubeless tyres to install, which meant a fair bit of sloshing sealant and more than enough opportunity to lose time getting the tyres to seat and seal.

Rather than fire up the compressor, I opted to try inflating each tyre with a standard track pump first, and each time, I only needed a few strokes before the tyres started filling with air. Since this was only my second encounter with Hutchinson’s tubeless tyres, I can’t comment with any authority, but I’m really impressed with how easy they are to install. I shouldn’t be surprised, though, since Hutchinson was the first company to manufacture tubeless road tyres.

Prime’s 38mm rim promises to be a versatile performer since it won’t be overly affected by crosswinds.

At 80psi, the 25c tyres measured 27mm-wide, a direct result of Prime’s wider rim bed. It makes for a generous contact patch for road use, yet, as mentioned above, the tyre does not feel slow. I’ve long been a fan of wide rims for this reason: the extra grip and comfort is immediately apparent, and it makes for a very pleasing ride.

My Baum Corretto served as the test mule for the entirety of the review period. Swapping between each wheelset gave me an insight on the relative performance of each, but in truth, there wasn’t much to separate the two.

Side-by-side, the BlackEdition 38 was a fraction more responsive than the BlackEdition 50. Once up to speed, the 50s seemed a little faster than the 38s, but it was a fleeting sensation. It’s only in retrospect that I was able to identify a strength for each wheelset, because at the time I was on them, it wasn’t so clear.

Prime’s 50mm-deep rim offers a little more speed, but it is more easily affected by crosswinds.

What was clearer was the susceptibility to crosswinds. The BlackEdition 38 was rarely, if ever, troubled by the wind. In contrast, the BlackEdition 50 could catch the wind, though it was no better, or worse, than any other wheelset with 50mm rims that I’ve used.

If I ignored the effects of the wind, then I found I could use the two wheelsets interchangeably. There was no difference in ride quality; lateral stiffness was seemingly equivalent; and as I’ve already mentioned, they were both easy to use and equally enjoyable to ride. Over the course of several weeks, I never developed a preference for one over the other, though in retrospect, the 50s were perhaps a little more impressive.

As for the quality of braking, it started out as satisfactory and after a couple of rides, it seemed to improve, suggesting that the rims and/or pads needed some running in. I soon found myself braking with much of the same confidence that I have with alloy wheels, regardless of whether it was wet or dry. With that said, a little more force was required at the lever to get the same response in back-to-back testing with a set of alloy wheels.

Prime’s carbon clinchers are supplied with tubeless tape and valves, but buyers can fit standard tyres with inner tubes, if desired, with no penalty.

That back-to-back testing also provided some perspective on the performance of the BlackEdition 38 and 50. On paper, low-profile alloy rims (in this instance, Hed Belgium C2 Plus) are far from a canny choice when it comes to cheating the wind, but on the road, the distinction is much less obvious. Once again, it was a matter of nuance, and those nuances tended to cancel out when comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each wheelset.

The alloy wheelset was the most versatile of the three because it was untroubled by the wind and offered surer braking with less effort. The extra speed offered by the BlackEdition 50 was welcome, however more caution was required to control the bike when the wind was blowing. The BlackEdition 38 fell somewhere in between, matching the agility and responsiveness of the alloys, but braking required more effort.

I didn’t have any trouble with loose spokes or bearings in either of Prime’s wheelsets during the review period. The tubeless tyres never leaked or burped air, either. All of these are promising signs. Out in the wild, Prime’s original carbon wheelsets have generally performed well, at least according to Wiggle and Chain Reaction Cycles customer reviews. However, some have had problems with spoke tension or the hub bearings.

Prime continues to offer low-weight skewers with external cams with its wheels, which only go so far when it comes to offering a tight hold and resisting the weather. A couple of wet rides was all that was required for both to deteriorate during the review period, but a smear of grease quickly addressed this issue. As for the amount of noise from the freehub body, it was reasonably quiet, offering a subdued click rather than a loud buzz.

Summary and final thoughts

At face value, it might seem like a minor thing, but by increasing the width of its rims by just a few millimetres, Prime has provided a worthy update for its carbon clinchers. Yes, there is the promise of improved aerodynamics when a wider tyre (e.g. 25c) is mounted on these wheels, as demonstrated by other brands, but it’s the change in the comfort and grip of the tyre that is more important. Compared to Prime’s original offerings with narrower rims, the BlackEdition is more enjoyable to ride primarily because of this effect on the tyres.

The other major update concerns the presentation of the new wheels; a change to black-on-black branding sits well with the stealthy aesthetic that has come to define high-end carbon wheelsets. As a result, Prime’s BlackEdition wheelsets look like an exotic upgrade even though the wheels aren’t as light or aerodynamically refined as models that are far more expensive. I suspect many buyers will be happy to compromise on these things given the massive difference in price.

That price puts Prime’s BlackEdition wheelsets in direct competition with high-end alloy wheels, such as Fulcrum’s Racing Zero. As a result, prospective buyers are faced with a difficult decision: Do they opt for the best of what an alloy wheelset has to offer, including high-end hubs and perhaps some weight savings; or, do they compromise on weight and hub quality to enjoy a taste of carbon exotica?

In practical terms, there are no clear distinctions, so in many ways, the matter can be decided on the basis of personal priorities and/or excitement for the product. However, for a bike equipped with rim brakes, there is no strong argument for carbon rims. After all, the marginal gains that are on offer from improved aerodynamics are not so great that the threat from the heat generated by braking can be ignored. At the very least, it makes for a compromise that prospective buyers should be prepared to accept before making a purchase.

Prime’s BlackEdition 38 (right) and 50 (left) carbon clinchers are no more expensive than a set of high-end alloy wheels.

The 50mm rim will appeal to buyers that want to enjoy a little more speed.

Novatec is the company behind Prime’s hubs.

Two-cross lacing is used on each side of the rear wheel.

The BlackEdition 38 is over 100g lighter than the 50, so it feels a little more responsive.

The 38mm rim is marginally aerodynamic yet remains untroubled by crosswinds.

Just one small white logo appears on each side of the rims. The rest are black.

The BlackEdition 38 looks much like any other high-end carbon wheelset.

The BlackEdition 50 is a bolder wheelset.

The 50mm rim provides more room for bigger logos.

Prime’s quick-release skewers are quick to succumb to wet weather. The external cam mechanism will become sticky to use, so regular application of a bit of grease will be needed to keep it moving smoothly.

Every model in the BlackEdition collection has the same stealthy presentation.

The brake track is placed further down on the rim to help keep heat away from the tyres and tubes, but buyers will have to remember to set the pads lower.

The front wheel has 20 spokes laced in a radial pattern.

The rear wheel has 24 spokes, laced in a 2-cross pattern.

Novatec’s “anti-bite guard” is a tougher steel spline positioned at a single point on the freehub body. It promises to stop Shimano/SRAM cassettes from biting into rest of the alloy splines.

 

 

 

The post Prime BlackEdition 38 and 50 carbon clinchers review appeared first on CyclingTips.

I’ve been riding bikes long enough to vividly remember the heyday of suspension stems. Back then, the stage was dominated by Girvin and Allsop/Softride — and both actors were terrible. But that was then, and this is now, and much to my surprise, the Redshift Sports ShockStop suspension is really, really good.

Seriously, you must be joking

Why on earth would anyone be interested in a suspension stem for a road or gravel bike, you might ask? That’s a very fair question.

Modern bikes now have a remarkable degree of compliance engineered into the frames and forks even compared to just a few years ago, and it’s often more than enough to make most rides on decently paved roads feel buttery smooth. Likewise, we’ve also already established that tire pressure is the most important determinant in the ride quality of a road bike by far, and a change of even just a few psi can make a world of difference.

But as previously discussed, there are practical limits to how much a bicycle chassis can flex in a desirable fashion, or how far we can decrease tire pressure, before it negatively influences other performance aspects. And perhaps most importantly, not all of us are blessed with pristine asphalt.

JRA with the Angry Asian: Does frame compliance still matter?

Enter the ShockStop stem.

Originally launched on Kickstarter in 2015, the ShockStop comprises a pivoting stem with two small elastomer inserts tucked away inside the square-shaped extension — and that’s it. That extension rotates on two cartridge bearings, and both the stem base and extension are made of forged-and-machined aluminum.

It’s easy to see from this angle how the squared-off stem extension presses down on the two elastomer blocks when a rider hits a bump. There isn’t a third elastomer to protect against a harsh top-out, but I only found that I wished for one on rare occasions. And even then, it’s more of a dulled thud than a disturbing metal-on-metal sensation.

The laser-etched graphics are pleasantly discreet, and although there’s little hiding the fact that the ShockStop isn’t a standard stem when you look at it up close, the design is sufficiently stealthy that most observers wouldn’t have much of a clue that anything out of the ordinary is going on. But, according to Redshift Sports, there’s up to 20mm of vertical movement available (measured at the hoods).

RedShift Sports offers the ShockShop in 90-120mm lengths with a common +/-6° angle, and a -30° angle in a lone 100mm size. All feature standard 1 1/8″ steerer clamp diameters and 31.8mm handlebar clamp diameters, with a removable four-bolt faceplate for easy installation and servicing. Five different elastomer inserts are included so that riders can fine-tune the stiffness to their liking.

Actual weight for my 100mm x -6° sample is 277g.

Eating my words

I didn’t want to like the ShockStop stem as much as I did. Looking back at the fleet of high-end road racing bikes I’ve ridden with their sleek lines and painfully efficient builds, the ShockStop just seemed a little … silly. Perhaps I was also still a little scarred by those Girvin and Allsop stems of yesteryear. I’ll also admit that I even put off installing the ShockStop on a bike for quite some time after company co-owner Stephen Anhert handed me a sample at the Interbike trade show in 2016 (sorry, guys).

But I eventually relented, if only for the sake of curiosity. And I’m glad I did, because this little thing genuinely surprised me.

Redshift Sports includes five different elastomer blocks so that riders can tune the stem stiffness as desired. I found that the company’s recommendations for my weight were far too comfort-oriented, though.

Once I had settled on an elastomer combo that suited my preferred feel, I was duly impressed by the ShockStop’s ability to smooth out the road surface without being obtrusive. As promised, the cartridge bearing pivot doesn’t move out-of-plane even a little bit, but yet the low-friction design is still remarkably sensitive, canceling out high-frequency buzz while also dramatically taking the sting out of impacts that would otherwise threaten to hammer your wrists into bone powder.

And unlike the FutureShock coil-spring cartridge that Specialized currently uses on its Roubaix and Diverge — both of which I found to move more than I wanted regardless of which spring I installed — the ShockStop felt appropriately firm. Here, it seemed to me that the movement was more supplementing the ability of the frame and tires to soak up the road imperfections, instead of trying to steal the show all for itself.

The ShockStop only impressed me more when I transferred it to a gravel bike. There, it not only provided the same comfort benefits I enjoyed on the tarmac, but also helped maintain front-wheel traction on bumpy dirt roads and singletrack. Sure, the ShockStop was heavier than the stem I once had on there, but the fact of the matter is that I was also going unmistakably faster than I was before, and with more confidence at that.

None of that movement felt overly “springy,” either, with the elastomer inserts providing just enough inherent damping to keep things under control.

That all said, I also found that my satisfaction with the ShockStop varied dramatically depending on which elastomers were installed.

Adjusting the stem stiffness is a somewhat cumbersome process that requires you to remove the handlebar in order to access the aluminum plate and steel bolt that hold the elastomer inserts in place. The stem also has to be installed on a bike, since the stem has to be preloaded when removing or installing the guts.

I first started with Redshift Sports’ recommendations for my weight, but there was a disconcerting amount of handlebar dive under braking, and way too much movement overall for my liking, especially on steeper downhill switchbacks or more technical non-paved terrain. It’s perhaps worth noting here that, given the nature of the ShockStop stem’s movement, the hoods inherently rotate down away from you when you hit something; longer stems will minimize that somewhat.

Redshift seems to have set its recommended guidelines for riders that are primarily seeking a pillowy-soft ride, and out of 15 total possible elastomer combinations, there are only four that are stiffer than what I chose. In my case, I gradually stepped up the insert densities until I arrived at a combination that Redshift deems more appropriate for a rider 25kg heavier than I am. Given my modest 70kg weight, that doesn’t leave much room for heavier riders that might want a similarly performance-oriented feel, so it’d be good to see Redshift add firmer options moving forward.

Performance-minded riders are likely to balk at the ShockStop aesthetics, too.

Not everyone will like how the Redshift Sports ShockStop suspension stem looks, but I suspect a lot of riders would be surprised by how well it works.

While Redshift Sports did a respectable job of keeping the ShockStop neat and tidy — again, the important bits are mostly hidden away inside — the overall shape is more suitable to mountain bikes than modern road bikes, and the exposed gap between the pivoting extension and fixed base seems a bit unfinished. A bit of molded plastic or rubber, similar to what Trek uses on the Domane’s IsoSpeed widgets, could go a long way toward smoothing out that transition and providing a more refined appearance.

And yes, the ShockStop is a bit heavy, but considering the very substantial benefit it provides, the added weight strikes me as more than reasonable, particularly given the broad compatibility with existing bikes. Redshift supposedly has a carbon fiber ShockStop in development, too, which would likely cut the deficit dramatically (and perhaps look better as well).

Keeping an open mind

I’m not ready to install a ShockStop on every drop-bar bike I own; far from it. In my opinion, good pure road racing bikes still provide enough give in the frameset and tires when riding on decent tarmac, and most riders will find the 35-40mm tires on gravel setups to be sufficient for those applications.

But that doesn’t mean the ShockStop doesn’t have its place. And if that conclusion surprised me, then I dare say this thing might very well catch a number of other riders off guard as well. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

www.redshiftsports.com

The post Redshift Sports ShockStop stem review: It’s good to be wrong sometimes appeared first on CyclingTips.

Welcome back to CT Recommends, a new series where we take the experience of our team and trusted contributors and force them to choose their favourite product in a particular category.

For this second instalment, we sent the following question to our global team via Slack: “If you could only have one pair of road cycling shoes, what would it be?” Some tried sitting on the fence, while others didn’t hesitate to call out what they consider the best road cycling shoe.

In the end, Specialized was the obvious winner, selected by a fair few of the team. Giro, Shimano, Bont and Lake all received votes, too. The varying choices go to prove that fit is everything when it comes to cycling shoes and so it’s certainly a good idea to try before you buy.

Road cycling shoe basics

The shoes picked here are traditional road cycling shoes, designed for use with road cycling pedals. The outersole is always telling for such a shoe, offering just minimal tread at the toe and heel, and typically relying on the cleat as the prominent walking surface. All the shoes picked feature the common three-bolt cleat mounting surface, which is notably different to the two-bolt system found on mountain-bike, gravel, touring or similar cycling footwear.

Lower-end shoes typically feature nylon soles. Most CyclingTips staff ride with more expensive carbon-soled shoes.

When looking at budget road shoes, expect to see a sole made of nylon or similar plastic. Almost all of our team selected shoes that sit at the higher-end, meaning a (usually) lighter and stiffer carbon fibre sole.

Upper material can vary greatly in cycling shoes, with many brands choosing to use synthetics (often microfibre) for the ability to engineer exact qualities. However, there is variety in choice, with some high-end shoes made of real leather (such as the kangaroo leather used in top-end Lake shoes), or even newer knitted material. Take a look inside the shoe and many higher-end models will feature advanced lining materials to keep your heel snug and an innersole with more considered or adjustable arch support.

These days, Boa is a dominant force in premium cycling footwear retention, but it’s not the only pick.

Shoe retention is just as varied as the material itself, with the popularity of laces having a notable resurgence of late. At the low end, velcro straps are the most common retention method, with dial- and wire-based retention systems, such as those from Boa, taking over as prices go up.

When looking at high-end shoes, Boa systems, or similar offerings, dominate the market, with laced options from a few brands offering an alternative. While velcro straps are available in premium shoes as a low-weight pick, very few in our team rate them.

Shoes with strong ventilation ensure your feet stay dry on hot days, and it’s something even high-end shoes can fail to offer. Stack height is another aspect of shoe design rarely spoken about it, but the closer your foot can be to the pedal, the better your pedaling stability will be.

Our favourite road cycling shoes

Unlike our last CT Recommends feature on bike travel cases, which broke our favourites down into five categories, cycling shoes are simpler, and obviously, a whole lot more personal. Unfortunately, as we all have different-shaped feet, what works for one staff member may not work for you. I’ve tried to provide basic insight into foot shapes, but it’s a topic we’ve barely dipped a toe in here.

Specialized S-Works

Specialized S-Works road shoes are used by a number of CT staff, and for good reason. James Huang, CyclingTips’ US tech editor, chooses the S-Works Sub 6 because they “work extremely well for me with the tight-fitting and narrow heel, relatively squared-off and roomy toe box, and medium volume. The varus angling works well for me, too.”

James describes his foot shape as being typically Asian: flat, wide, low-volume, narrow heel, very low instep. He also gets along well with Shimano shoes, and so-so on Giro, but describes the likes of Fizik, Sidi, Lake and Mavic as being too narrow in the toe box and lacking heel support.

The S-Works 6 and the newer 7 are quite similar. A few actually prefer the snugger fit offered by the 6’s.

Our leader, Wade Wallace, is another who picks the Specialized. With an “average” width foot, Wade finds comfort in most cycling shoes, but prefers the S-Works 6 (and now the 7) as they “fit like a glove”.

“Everything keeps in place, especially the heel,” Wade says. “They’re nice and snug without ever getting uncomfortable if my feet swell.” Wade notes that Shimano S-Phyre RC9s are a close second, but in that position simply because they “don’t feel as snug.”

Andy van Bergen, our customer experience manager, and Mr Hells 500, is another S-Works 6 user. “Lightweight, and comfortable. I’ve done a couple of Everestings in them now, so I figure if you can ride 20 hours straight in them they must be ok. I really like how snug it is on the heel.”

Andy also rates the Bontrager XXX, giving some indication of the fit for those shoes. This aligns with James’ thoughts on Bontrager, that they’re a “fairly similar overall fit to Specialized, although with a wider heel and more volume overall.” Andy doesn’t rate the velcro straps on his Bontragers, however, and so he has Specialized on top.

James is not alone in liking the laced Sub 6.

One last nod for the Specialized S-Works 6s comes from Mitch Wells, a key person behind the CyclingTips Emporium. “Add me to the list on liking the heel-cup-hugging feel of the S-Works,” he says. “I still run two pairs of the older Boa dial S-Works 5s as my everyday pairs. And I like the lace fitting of the S-Works Sub 6, but white is for dry days only.”

Giro Empire ACC and SLX

Giro’s laced shoes earn two votes from the team.

First is from our senior US editor, Caley Fretz, who, with a self-described narrow foot, picks the laced Giro Empire range. “Huge Giro Empire fan here. The last just works for me and I like laces,” he says. “E70 knits are my current summer favorite. I have a high instep which is why laces are so good. I can leave the middle of my foot pretty loose.”

The Giro Empire is the cycling shoe responsible for a resurgence in laces.

CyclingTips’ production editor, Iain Treloar is also a fan of the Giro Empire ACC and the lighter SLX.

“I’m all about laces. When I use other closures I just find that I can’t get as precise a fit,” Iain says. “Although, the VR90 are a pain to get dry after muddy rides.” A user of orthotic inserts, Iain has long had trouble in finding shoes that fit him. “They’re the only road shoes I could get comfortable with after trying on about 30 different models. I thought I was a wide foot, but who the hell knows, because I keep seeing them referenced as a narrow fit.”

My take on Iain’s fitting success, backed by James, is that Giro’s flat sole, with its somewhat lacking arch support, works perfectly with the orthotics, while the construction of the shoe and the laces mean there’s little pressure against the ball of the foot. James isn’t a fan of the Giro Empires, citing “the fit is kinda meh for me. Heel is too wide, the toe box is too narrow (especially in the Empire line), and there’s no built-in arch support (beyond what the innersole offers).”

Shimano S-Phyre RC9

Shimano’s S-Phyre range is now in its second year.

This is my pick. The S-Phyre RC9s just give me so little to complain of. They offer an impressively low stack height, are super easy to get in and out of and have one of the most widely adjustable cleat mounts of any shoe on the market.

For me, the Specialized S-Works 6s (I haven’t used the 7s) are awesome, but I have mixed feelings about the locked-in heel that Wade, Mitch, Andy and James love. I appreciate the feel of it, but I’ve also had it blister me where it wraps around the Achilles (an element that’s apparently more relaxed in the new S-Works 7). I also don’t love the aesthetic of the tall toe box.

I totally understand why Wade and James have put the Specialized S-Works as their top pick (and, notably, mentioned Shimano as their second), especially given they’re lighter, more supportive and just feel like a more premium shoe. But in the end, the more relaxed hold of the Shimano S-Phyre hasn’t caused me any pain.

Lake CX401

Our roving reporter Dave Everett is a bonafide fan of Lake shoes, despite no longer wearing a pair. “I get terribly uncomfortable feet: frozen toes, hot feet, they even keep me awake at night,” he says. “I can tell you the day it started to get like that: 2008 Marmotte in the Alps. My feet blew to bits in the heat on the Galibier.

“Since then I’ve struggled with shoes but the best by far were Lake CX401s matched with a Solestar insole. Super supple, and the standard version just fit perfectly. But I destroyed them in a crash and they’re crazy money to replace.

“Since then, I’ve found the Bontrager XXX with their customisable insoles good. But nothing touches the Lakes.”

Dave’s love for Lake is repeated by our new development hire, Josh Kadis. Josh casually commented “Lake 4eva”, before suggesting that, while a novelty, the kangaroo leather is amazing.

James is another that’s tried Lake, but didn’t get along with them, stating they suffer from the “same arch curvature issue as Fizik — too much volume for me.”

Bont Vaypor S

Matt’s pick is a pair of Bonts.

Our Australian tech editor, Matt Wikstrom, picks the Bont Vaypor S shoes. These Australian-designed shoes are a strong example of Bont’s different approach to shoe design which sees the carbon sole nearly envelope the whole foot. As a result of the design, Bont shoes are typically extremely low in weight and high in stiffness.

“So much room for the toes, so much hold on the heel, and very hard wearing,” Matt says. “Plus no cardboard inner to get smelly when the shoes are wet. I don’t wear anything else.”

Matt suggests his foot shape is about average and with a low volume when shopping for normal street shoes. When it comes to cycling shoes, he’s on the cusp of a wide fit. Worthy of note, like Iain Treloar, Wikstrom uses orthotics inside his cycling shoes, although his cover the arch and heel only.

Be warned that the fit of the Bont Vaypors is notoriously polarising. For example, James says: “Ironclad hold around heel and ankle, tons of room in the toe box. Have to closely match last with foot shape, though, since the built-in arch support is so aggressive. Sometimes can’t find them comfortable on long rides in hot weather. They’re too stiff in that situation.”

Fizik R1 (older model)

CyclingTips’ US editor, Neal Rogers, has forever widening feet as a result of collapsed arches. Those collapsed arches also result in fairly consistent hot-spot pain in trying many popular shoes. Neal keeps returning to his old pair of first-gen buckle and velcro Fizik R1s, stating they just work for his feet. He also finds favour in an even older pair of Sidi Megas, but states the Fizik are better in comfort and durability.

Funnily enough, Neal also likes Bontrager shoes, stating the RXLs are nicely comfortable for him, but despite that, prefers to use the older Fizik R1 (note: these are discontinued and Fizik has since changed its last shape).

In Neal’s case, his feet just did not get along with Specialized S-Works’ offering, nor Giro’s.

Shimano Sandals

Our senior Australian editor Matt de Neef suggested his favourite road cycling shoes are Shimano SPD sandals. “Unrivalled ventilation for those hot days, quick to dry, and wonderfully stylish as well!” He claims he was joking, but regardless, I decided it was safest to remove him from the conversation.

What road cycling shoes do you use and why? Or are you part of the growing crowd to ditch road pedals altogether and move exclusively to mountain bike cleats?

The post CT Recommends: Our favourite road cycling shoes appeared first on CyclingTips.

Shifting is pretty damn good these days. When everything is properly set up and well maintained, you’re able to shift without having to think or worry about it. And that brilliant shifting isn’t exclusive to the most expensive groupsets, either. Most of us would continue to enjoy cycling if we were forced to ride Tiagra.

Many of us often insist on having the best, often because we believe we need it, but if we’re honest, it’s simply because we can.

Sitting at the second tier, Shimano’s Ultegra may be viewed as a mid-range groupset to those that use Dura-Ace, and yet, it remains easily good enough for professional racing. It’s common to find Ultegra used on the training and backup bikes of Pro Continental teams, or the race bikes of Continental outfits.

In a day and age where most new bikes being released seem to mix hydraulic disc brakes and electronic shifting, it seems odd that tech writer Dave Rome would spend nearly a year testing “old” technology such as a mechanical rim brake groupset. However, it’s going to be many years until disc brakes are the most common sight on the road, and more so, mechanical shifting isn’t going away.

With Dura-Ace being the top dog in Shimano’s range, and 105 holding the title as the “workhorse”, it’s Ultegra that holds the reputation as being the performance groupset of the masses. Has Shimano retained such status in its new R8000 offering? This sample of Shimano’s latest Ultegra mechanical groupset, R8000, has spent the past 11 months covered in grit, dust and mud while gravel riding, and was then trialled on a road bike too.

Spoiler alert: it’s seriously good.

New R8000 in a nutshell

Everything in the Ultegra R8000 groupset is new, and yet, so much of it is familiar and seen before with Dura-Ace.

Running on an approximate three-year product lifecycle, the latest generation of Ultegra was released in time for the 2018 season. Including the new options of hydraulic disc brakes, there’s a total of four different groupsets variants on offer. Ultegra R8000 (as reviewed) and R8020 each feature mechanical shifting: the former is paired with cable-activated rim brakes while the latter is designed for hydraulic disc brakes. As a consequence, the brake/shifters for R8000 and R8020 are unique designs with slightly different hood dimensions, however, both employ the same gear-shifter mechanism and parts.

The other two variants — R8050 and R8070 — are Di2 (electronic) groupsets paired with rim brakes and hydraulic disc brakes, respectively. Once again, the brake/shifters are purpose-built for each braking system. Importantly, every variant adopts many of the innovations and refinements first seen for Dura-Ace R9100.

The finer details have been covered before and so I won’t rehash them, but let me cover the basics of what’s new in Ultegra R8000. Shifter ergonomics are refined, gear range choices are further broadened and expanded well beyond the options of Dura-Ace (with a wide 11-34T cassette now available), brake calipers are improved, and derailleur designs are substantially different to previous generations, too. The cassette (except for new size options), bottom bracket and chain are pretty much unchanged from Ultegra 6800.

Weight wise, a complete groupset of R8000 (with rim brakes) is 39g heavier than its predecessor, with the derailleurs, brake calipers and shifters carrying the extra mass, while the new asymmetric crankset saves a few grams.

The larger gear ranges of Ultegra R8000 is one thing Dura-Ace R9100 doesn’t have.

Worthy of note: the new R8000 components are all cross-compatible with the previous 6800 generation and just about any other Shimano 11-speed mechanical groupset. This means that if you’re on a recent 11-speed Shimano road groupset, you can mix and match many of the components reviewed here.

Why Ultegra is so much cheaper than Dura-Ace

From afar, if it weren’t for the grey aesthetic, Ultegra R8000 would look near identical to Dura-Ace. The price difference between the two is stark: at suggested retail, you’re looking at US$2,219 / AU$2,590 for Dura-Ace R9100, versus US$1,094 / AU$1,499 for Ultegra R8000. Speak to many in the industry and they’ll tell you Ultegra is simply made of cheaper and therefore heavier materials, and that’s where the price difference is. This is certainly true, to a degree, but there’s more to it.

All weights are in grams. *170mm, 50-34T, **11-28T cassettes, ***Excludes bottom bracket and cables

At approximately 300g between Dura-Ace R9100 and Ulegra R8000, the difference in mass isn’t nearly as great as the differential in cost. No doubt, Dura-Ace’s use of titanium, carbon fibre and magnesium — where Ultegra uses aluminium and steel — accounts for some of the difference. However, the biggest difference is in the extra finishing time Dura-Ace receives: Some parts are further machined; some finishes are finer; moving components are made smoother and often with more precise bushings or even bearings; and likely, tolerances are tighter, too.

On the road, the difference is subtle, at best. A sensitive rider may feel a little less shift effort in Dura-Ace. However, for most, the shifting will feel the same. Dura-Ace’s additional friction-beating Sil-Tec chain coatings or smoother derailleur jockey wheels may be felt in the hand, but again, few could tell the difference in a blind test or on the road.

Whether the differences are noticeable or not, what’s clear is that the tighter construction, hidden bearings and more advanced finishing on Dura-Ace will outperform that of Ultegra as time goes by. This has always been the case through many past generations. Where Dura-Ace and Ultegra will often feel near identical when new, it’s Dura-Ace that retains that same feeling many years down the track, whereas Ultegra shifters and other moving components will typically feel a touch less positive.

Now that’s not to say Ultegra isn’t durable; far from it. This groupset is built to handle abuse on a gravel bike, and it’ll laugh off whatever you put it through on the road.

Ride impressions

I tested R8000 in various different gearing formats, but most of my time was spent using it on a gravel bike with a compact crank (50-34T), long cage rear derailleur and 11-34T cassette. The rim brake calipers were tested separately after the groupset was installed on a road bike.

Shimano’s new road rear derailleur design features a more direct rear housing path, something that calls for a more flexible piece of housing.

As expected, the assembly process is well considered, but derailleur setup is a little trickier, or at least different, than generations past. For example, the rear derailleur uses its own (included) piece of highly flexible housing and so the old housing loop from the chainstay is now more direct. Likewise, the new front derailleur design sees the cable tension adjustment integrated and controlled with a hex key at the derailleur itself, but looping the cable through the pinch bolt is a fiddle on first go.

From the get-go, R8000 revealed a familiar feeling to that of Dura-Ace. Smooth, consistent and near-silent gear changes with each click of the lever, and that didn’t change during the testing period.

The updated hood shape is something I got on with well. It’s not too different to 6800, but there’s greater grip from the textured rubber hood cover. In turn, you get a more secure hold with less hand tension.

Lever reach is now shorter out of the box, and with good adjustment range from there. Likewise, the secondary shift button behind the lever blade is now larger.

Shimano claims that the shift lever throw is now shorter, offering a more immediate shift. It’s not majorly noticeable from 6800 but the change in lever shape is obvious. The greater outward flare at the brake levers improves bar clearance with small hands and also feels more natural during one-finger braking. Likewise, the downshift paddle that sits behind the brake lever is larger and easier to shift.

Where Dura-Ace just offers a short cage derailleur and a maximum cassette size of 30T, Ultegra has all the choice. A big part of the new Ultegra is versatility. In addition to the regular choice of compact, semi-compact or regular chainrings, Shimano offer cassettes ranging from 11-25T through to 11-34T, the latter HG-800 cassette being something I’ve reviewed separately. If you choose a cassette between 25-30T, then the regular GS short-cage rear derailleur is the pick. If you’re using the 11-32 or 11-34T, Shimano suggests using the long-cage GS derailleur.

The aesthetics of the new rear derailleur are proving to be polarising. Thankfully this new look brings a host of advantages.

Speaking of the R8000 derailleur, the new low-profile shadow design is something Shimano borrowed from its mountain bike lineup. It’s less likely to get damaged in a crash or from a bike toppling over and is ready for use with the newer direct-mount dropout design if your frame offers such a thing. Functionally, it retains Shimano’s silky smooth shift operation, and at least to me, has more positive (stronger) springs which lead to a marginally snappier-feeling shift. Likewise, chain retention is improved, most notably over rough terrain, and there’s noticeably less noise as well. Despite riding some questionable terrain, I never suffered a dropped chain.

Since my testing began, Shimano added its Ultegra RX rear derailleur options for additional chain security on cyclocross or gravel bikes – furthering the versatility of the Ultegra lineup. The new derailleur options add chain security through the addition of a clutch mechanism. It’s always nice to have the choice, but the new RX version should only be selected if you’re planning on tackling rough off-road terrain. If you’re sticking on tarmac or even light gravel, you’ll be perfectly happy with the regular R8000 derailleur, which happens to be cheaper and 38g lighter, too.

The front derailleur sees the biggest change. Loving the integrated cable tension adjuster in this.

The new front derailleur receives the most obvious overhaul. The new design allows for increased tyre clearance, a more positive shift and, best of all, simple cable tension adjustment without having to resort to an ugly inline barrel adjuster. Once setup, front shifting in conjunction with Shimano’s chainrings is undisputedly the market benchmark – nobody matches Shimano’s front shift quality.

However, Shimano does retain the need to trim the front derailleur in extreme gears. This is controlled via the micro clicks in the left shift lever, and just like my colleague James Huang stated in his review of Dura-Ace R9100, I too prefer SRAM’s Yaw derailleur which all but removes the need for such manual adjustment as you shift through the rear block.

Shimano’s HollowTech forged aluminium cranks are also a gold standard. They’re super stiff, extremely reliable, easy to service and competitive on the scales.

It’s not all roses though, and Shimano is stubborn when it comes to accepting various frame fitments. In their minds, 24mm spindles and either BB86 or threaded bottom brackets are the gold standard – and everything else is inferior. While I commend such a firm stance, the reality is that a huge number of bikes have moved to larger bottom bracket types, and in these cases, you’re forced to find an aftermarket bottom bracket solution to fit Shimano cranks. Thankfully such things are plentiful, and while rarely as good value as Shimano bottom brackets, it has become a non-issue.

Shimano’s own four bolt chainrings are the best shifting out there.

As much as the new Ultegra is about versatility, Shimano still lacks a more adventure-friendly sub-compact or similar chainring setup. Sizes such as 32/48T are becoming increasingly common on modern gravel bikes and, as it stands, bike manufacturers are still forced to look outside of Shimano’s catalogue for such options.

Speaking of sizes, Ultegra is available in a generous range of crank lengths, but Dura-Ace is superior if you need specific crank lengths outside of the normal bell curve.

All of those things can be easily forgiven but Shimano still hides one glaring issue: cable wear. The tight cable bend in the shifter, along with the use of a slightly thicker 1.2mm cable (SRAM uses a more pliable 1.1mm cable), means Shimano still has not fixed its long-standing issue of fraying inner cables with extensive use.

In my 11 interrupted months of testing this groupset, I didn’t get to the point of experiencing this with my sample, but I have witnessed it on other bikes of a similar age. From what I’ve seen, new R9100 or R8000 is better at preserving cables than previous generations, but the issue does remain.

Thankfully the fix is a relatively cheap and easy one: replace your cables every 12 months, as is generally good to do, and you’ll never experience this issue. If such maintenance sounds unacceptable, then there’s always Di2.

On the topic of cables, Shimano does ultra-slick cables well, but not without issue. The slick coating given to the inner cables still has a tendency to fray and gunk up. While they suffer from more friction when new, the cheaper stainless steel cables are sure to last longer.

The new rim brake calipers are stiffer and with room for 28c tyres.

Finally, there are the newly updated rim brake calipers. These continue Shimano’s legacy of offering benchmark rim brake calipers with a stiff, secure and smooth lever feel. While heavier and using a few bushings in place of Dura-Ace’s bearings, the power is otherwise the same as the top-tier offering (largely due to the same brake pads provided with both).

The dual-pivot calipers are slightly modified from the previous generation, offering a sleeker aesthetic and a stiffer, albeit heavier, build. This extra mass results in an ever-so-slightly stiffer feel at the lever, and on the road, it rewards you with even more secure braking. The brake quick-release is now tucked away too, but no longer indexes: it’s now either open or closed.

As another benefit, the new calipers offer a touch more tyre clearance than those from the 6800 group — they’re now designed to work with up to 28c rubber.

Shimano Ultegra may be on the second step in Shimano’s range, but it’s a damn fine groupset.

The R8000 shifters improve on Shimano’s ergonomics, with a more naturally placed lever blade and shift paddle.

Helping to provide the best front shifting in the business, the big ring features shift ramps like no other.

Backside of the new front derailleur design. There’s a small support grub screw designed to give the derailleur a second point of contact with the frame.

Shimano sets the standard for many different components, its rim brakes being such an example.

Shimano has done a stellar job with R8000. There’s no doubt that this groupset is the benchmark of its price point.

The post Shimano Ultegra R8000 mechanical groupset long-term review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Industry Nine is best known for its mountain bike wheelsets that feature brightly anodised hubs and spokes with a loud freehub and rapid engagement. Their wheels also have a robust reputation, something that can be traced back to Industry Nine’s thoughtful hub designs and high-quality manufacturing.

Industry Nine has been feeling out the road market over the last few years, and it was enough to encourage them to take on the highly ambitious goal of developing a range of aero road disc wheels that could rival established brands like Zipp. In this review, Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom takes a look at the effort that went into the design of the new wheels as he tests Industry Nine’s most aerodynamic road disc wheelset, the i9.65.

When Harvey Spiegel founded Turnamics, Inc. in 1969, I doubt he expected that his contract machine shop would ever house a premier bicycle wheel brand. And yet, that’s exactly what happened, though it would take 35 years.

Based in Asheville, North Carolina, Turnamics has always been in the business of providing manufacturing facilities and solutions for its clients. Harvey shares the business with his son, Clint, who grew up on the shop floor before joining the company in the ‘90s after graduating from college. By that time, Turnamics was losing business to overseas manufacturing, so Clint went to work on creating an enterprise that could capitalise on the workshop’s manufacturing capabilities to provide an additional stream of income.

Industry Nine was Clint’s ninth enterprise, spawned in 2004 by a fresh interest in cycling and an idea for a new hub design that offered rapid engagement. He also wanted to replace traditional spokes and nipples with an alloy spoke that was inserted at the rim and threaded into the hub flange. It was the first step towards a wheel system that could be adapted to any rim on the market, and it wasn’t long before consumers, and the industry, started to take notice.

In the time since then, Industry Nine has grown steadily to take up more room on Turnamic’s workshop floor. The original crew of four employees has grown more than ten-fold, and where once the brand was exclusively devoted to MTB, now it has hubs and wheels for the road market. Indeed, Industry Nine recently made the bold step of moving into the high-performance end of the road market by developing a suite of aero road disc wheels. The i9.65 is the flagship for the new range, and according to wind tunnel testing, it easily matches the performance of Zipp’s 404.

Industry Nine partnered with Reynolds Cycling to design its carbon road disc rims with a choice of three depths: 35mm, 45mm and 65mm (shown).

Industry Nine x Reynolds Cycling

Industry Nine had very clear goals when it started working on the design of its i9 Road Disc wheels. At the top of the list was drag; there was no point in bringing the new wheels to market if they couldn’t rival what the leaders had to offer. However, it was also important that the wheels behaved predictably in crosswinds, so the company wanted to avoid any sudden changes in side forces at different wind angles.

Rather than going shopping for an existing rim, Industry Nine approached Reynolds Cycling to help with the design of the new wheels and to take care of manufacturing the rims. The two companies had already enjoyed a successful collaboration when bringing Industry Nine’s PillarCarbon mountain bike wheels to life for 2015, and with an ongoing commitment to manufacturing the hookless carbon rims for those wheels, Reynolds was the obvious partner for the work.

That the company also has extensive experience with designing and manufacturing aero road rims no doubt sealed the deal.

Industry Nine’s drag data for the i9.65 versus Zipp’s 404 Firecrest tubeless disc fitted with 23mm Continental GP4000 S tyres.

A change to a 25mm Continental GP4000 S tyre had a minor effect on the drag of the i9.65 and Zipp 404. At 80psi, this tyre measured 29mm on the i9.65 compared to 27.5mm for the 404, which has a narrower rim bed.

An overview of how Industry Nine’s i9 Road Disc range compares with Zipp’s 303 and 404 when fitted with a 25mm Continental GP4000 S tyre. The AR25 is a low-profile road disc wheelset from Industry Nine’s catalogue.

Reynolds made extensive use of computational fluid dynamics to model three rim profiles — 35mm, 45mm, and 65mm — that satisfied Industry Nine’s brief before prototypes were created for wind tunnel testing. Industry Nine made use of the A2 Wind Tunnel in nearby Mooresville to test each of the new rim profiles at 30mph with two different tyre sizes, 23mm and 25mm, in direct comparison with Zipp’s tubeless disc 303 and 404.

All of the results from that study are presented in Industry Nine’s white paper on its i9 Road Disc wheels, which shows that the i9.65 wheelset offers a little less drag than Zipp’s 404 at every yaw angle. Continental’s 23mm GP4000 S tyre, which measured 27mm on the i9.65, provided marginally better aerodynamics than the 25mm version at yaw angles less than 15°, while the latter was better for yaw angles 15-20°. With that said, the distinction between the two wheelsets and tyre sizes was never more than a few watts.

Side forces on the i9.65 essentially matched those for the 404, increasing steadily with wind angle before flattening out beyond 15°. Considering that the i9.65 is actually 7mm taller than the 404, Industry Nine was very pleased with this result.

Unsurprisingly, the shallower rim profiles for the i9.45 and i9.35 wheelsets were less susceptible to side forces, and they suffered more drag than the i9.65. Nevertheless, when compared to Zipp’s 303, the i9.45 proved to be a sound rival, while the i9.35 offered a clear reduction in drag compared to Industry Nine’s AR25 low-profile wheelset.

Designing i9 Road Disc wheels as a system

The i9 Road Disc range is built on more than just an effective set of rim profiles. The hub, spokes, nipples, and rims come together as a system to maximise marginal gains in mass and geometry to yield a lightweight yet robust set of wheels. This is the kind of approach that mass manufacturers like Mavic, Shimano, and Fulcrum/Campagnolo have been practising since the turn of century with wheel components designed to complement one another to achieve specific goals.

With the capabilities to literally machine the hub shells from the ground up, Industry Nine was able to carefully choose the size and position of each hub flange to maximise spoke bracing angles and the lateral stiffness of the wheel. The company even went so far as to increase the width of the front axle by 1mm (to 101mm) so that it could separate the flanges just a little more for extra bracing.

At face value, this kind of effort may seem pedantic, but when the design of the hub is compromised by the need to offset a flange to accommodate the front disc brake rotor and rear sprockets, millimetres make a difference. An offset hub flange not only reduces the bracing angle; it also creates a significant imbalance in spoke tension that is the primary cause of spoke fatigue.

That’s why Industry Nine company opted to use triplet lacing — dubbed 2/1 lacing in its marketing material — for the front and rear wheels. It’s a strategy that places twice as many spokes on the side of the wheel where the hub flange has been offset and the spokes are shorter. This is something that Fulcrum/Campagnolo and Shimano has been employing with great effect for its rear wheels, where tension on the non-drive spokes is much closer — 70% or more — to the tension on the drive-side spokes.

Industry Nine laces its i9 Road Disc wheels with 16 spokes in a two-cross pattern on the left side of the front wheel and the right side of the rear wheel; the remaining eight spokes are laced in a radial pattern on the opposite of each wheel. Straight-pull spokes are used throughout, and the rims are drilled not only to suit the lacing pattern, but to match the angle of the spokes from each side of the hub.

This kind of refined integration for each part of the wheel is what adds to the strength and durability of the system. That’s not to say that the wheels will be unbreakable, but it gives Industry Nine the confidence to offer a lifetime warranty on the wheels.

In the case of the i9.65 wheelset sent for review, there was ~15% difference in the amount of tension on each side of the front and rear wheels. Average spoke tension was ~125kgf on the left side of the front wheel versus ~110kgf for the right; for the rear, the drive-side spokes had an average tension of ~150kgf compared to ~125kgf for the non-drive-side spokes. That’s not perfect, but it is a significant improvement over wheels with standard lacing.

The 24 spokes that are used to build the front and rear wheels are divided 2:1 to reduce the difference in spoke tension that is caused by offsetting the hub flanges for the front disc rotor and rear sprockets.

The build, weight, price, and options

As mentioned above, Industry Nine’s i9 Road Disc wheels are available with a choice of three rim profiles: 35mm, 45mm and 65mm. All are disc-specific and tubeless-ready with an internal width of 21mm. The external width starts at 29mm for the 35mm rim and increases to 31.5mm for the 65mm rim.

The same Torch Road Disc hubset, Sapim CX-Ray spokes, and alloy nipples are used for each build. Buyers get a choice of six-bolt or Center Lock rotor mounts; Shimano/SRAM, Campagnolo, or XD freehub bodies; and axle fittings to suit quick-release skewers or 12mm thru-axles. In addition, the hubs and nipples are available in a choice of 11 colours (black, silver, red, blue, orange, gold, turquoise, purple, pink, green, lime green) while the spokes can be silver or black.

Like all of Industry Nine’s hubs, the Torch Road Disc hubset is machined, anodised, laser-etched, and assembled on the floor at Turnamics. The only parts that are outsourced are the bearings. The hub shell is made from 7075 aluminium alloy while 7068 is used for the freehub body.

The i9 Road Disc hubs are designed for straight-pull spokes.

The axle end cap is easy to remove without tools.

This 12mm thru-axle cap can be replaced with one to suit a standard quick-release skewer.

The bearing sits close to the end of the axle, which reduces flex, but the elements do not have to penetrate far to find the bearing. A smear of grease will improve water-resistance.

The disc rotor needs to be removed before the left axle cap can be removed.

A decent grip on the cap is all that is required to lift it off the axle.

The left bearing sits deeper than the right, but a smear of grease is still a good idea.

 

The freehub body makes use of the same drive mechanism that has come to define Industry Nine’s rapid-engaging MTB hubs, however rather than six pawls, there are three. This reduces the amount of drag for the freehub, as well as weight and noise, while the angle of engagement increases from 3° to 6°. For road riders, that still counts as notably quicker than what most of the rest of the market has to offer.

Both hubs are easy to pull down since the end caps simply press on to the alloy axles. Once removed, the freehub body slides out of the hub for servicing, while a set of suitable drifts will be required to remove and replace the cartridge bearings. The pawls sit on small springs that are a little fussy to handle, but overall, Industry Nine’s hubs are relatively simple to service.

The weight of the i9.65 wheelset sent for review was 1,582g (front 727g; rear, 855g) with rim tape and tubeless valves. That’s a decent weight for wheels with 65mm rims, and Industry Nine is proud of the fact that’s significantly lighter than Zipp’s 404 Firecrest tubeless disc wheelset, which has a published weight of 1,715g (without tape or valves).

Industry Nine manufactures every part of its hubs except the bearings.

The left axle cap on the rear hub is essentially the same as the front, including the option to swap it for one to suit a standard quick-release skewer.

Don’t try pulling the cap off until the disc rotor is out of the way.

In the event that one of the non-drive-side spokes needs to be replaced, the bearing will have to be removed first.

The right axle cap can be pulled once the cassette has been removed.

 

Once the cap has been removed, the freehub can be pulled out of the hub…

…where it will slide off the axle. There’s a chance that one or more pawls may fall out at this point. Watch out also for the small spring that sits behind each pawl.

There are three pawls for engaging the drive-ring in the hub shell. These are cut from heat-treated steel, so they add a bit of weight, but Industry Nine prefers the material for its extra strength.

Once the freehub is out of the way, the drive mechanism can be cleaned up before adding some light grease.

Like the pawls, the 60-tooth drive-ring is cut from heat-treated steel, and according to Industry Nine, it can contend with 700 foot-pounds of torque.

 

As for the price, recommended retail for the i9.65 wheelset is US$2,525/AU$3,200. Buyers in the USA can save US$125 by opting for an all-black build, while those that want to personalise their new wheels even further can order custom rim stickers from Stickrd for US$75. Lastly, there is also an option to upgrade to Enduro XD-15 ceramic bearings.

As mentioned above, Industry Nine backs its i9 Road Disc wheels with a lifetime warranty, but it must be noted that the wheels have a maximum rider weight limit of 250lb/118kg.

Winding up the wheels

I’ve long been a fan of anodised hubs, so Industry Nine’s pretty purple hubs (with matching nipples, no less) were quick to ring my bell. Likewise the sleek shape of each hub body and the way the radial spokes sprouted from within. None of these finishing touches really has any bearing upon the performance of the wheels, but I think they add value (and bling!) to the overall package.

That Industry Nine offers buyers a choice of 11 colours for the hubs and spoke nipples, plus two for the spokes, makes for a wheelset that borders on a custom build. Add in the choice of three rim profiles, and buyers have almost everything that they’d want in a wheelset, aside from a higher spoke count for heavier riders.

The data is also there to reassure buyers that the i9.65 wheelset is truly aerodynamic. When added to all of the other features, such as tubeless compatibility, a 21mm rim bed, and a competitive weight, these wheels are very attractive, on paper at least, compared to what the rest of the upper end of the market has to offer.

Putting the wheels to use did nothing to dispel that notion, either. I could not identify any major shortcomings as the i9.65 lived up to my expectations for a high-profile wheelset.

To start with, they were sturdy under load and reasonably responsive. Once up to speed, they were pretty quick, too, but if the wind was blowing, the front wheel would get pushed around. Handling was quite predictable, and with the confidence of disc brakes, I could brake aggressively without worrying about the perils of heat buildup in the rims.

With all of that said, the i9.65 did not ignite my motivation or elevate my performance on the bike. Given the asking price and the position of carbon wheels as a halo product in the marketplace, this might be what some buyers would be hoping for, but that’s pretty unrealistic. I’ve yet to install a set of wheels that could do the same thing for my performance as a fresh set of legs and some great form.

At one end of the i9 Road Disc range is the i9.65 (left) and at the other, there is the i9.35 (right). The i9.45 (not shown) completes the range.

It’s also worth acknowledging that some rim profiles will work better for a rider than others, depending on their demands, strengths, and preferences. I’ve consistently found that tall wheels like the i9.65 are a little cumbersome and demanding to use. I live in a windy part of the world and I don’t have the power to push tall wheels with ease, so I really couldn’t get the best out of these wheels.

Swapping to Industry Nine’s i9.35 — which I had on hand for direct comparison thanks to Industry Nine’s Australian distributor, Dawson Sports Group — I immediately enjoyed the extra agility and responsiveness of a lighter wheelset that was immune to the effects of crosswinds. It was an inviting wheelset that could be used on any course and in any kind of weather, but there was no strong sense of free speed, which agrees well with Industry Nine’s wind tunnel results.

This comparison was enough to convince me that the i9.45 wheelset would be the perfect wheelset for me. I’ve always enjoyed riding 45-50mm rims because they manage to offer much of the speed of a taller rim while retaining a lot of what a shallower rim has to offer. With that said, these kind of distinctions are highly subjective, but they shouldn’t be ignored. After all, there is more to the performance of a wheelset than aerodynamics.

The i9.65 was an easy wheelset to live with. Tyre installation was a simple matter, regardless of whether they were standard clinchers or tubeless tyres. I was able to inflate tubeless tyres with a floor pump, and found that the beads quickly found and maintained a firm seat, even after the tyres were deflated. The 21mm rim bed added to the width of the tyres, as expected, with a set of 28c Vittoria Rubino Pro clinchers measuring 29mm at 60psi, while 25c Schwalbe Pro One tubeless tyres measured 28mm at 70psi.

The wheels remained true throughout the review period while the freehub offered a rich buzz on par with Chris King hubs. Straight-pull spokes may present a problem in the event of a sudden breakage, but at least they are not a proprietary design, and there are a couple of brands that make suitable replacements. J-bend spokes will always be easier to replace at short notice, but honestly, for a modern wheelset like the i9.65, they would look horribly outdated.

I mentioned above that the front axle measures 101mm rather than 100mm, and it did give me some trouble, because the spacing of the fork on the bike I was working with was exactly 100mm. Trying to line up the disc rotor while spreading the fork legs could be a fussy operation, but this won’t apply to all forks. In fact, Industry Nine found that most of the forks they measured were 100.5-101.5mm, which is why they opted to add to the width of the axle. For those that would rather avoid the issue, it’s a simple matter to make this measurement before committing to a purchase.

Summary and final thoughts

Industry Nine may be a newcomer to the aero road wheel market, but its i9 Road Disc wheels tick all the boxes, starting with an effective aerodynamic rim profile. The performance of the i9.65 doesn’t slay Zipp’s 404, so buyers can’t expect to leave Zipp’s customers in the dust, but there are marginal gains up for grabs. As for other offerings from brands like Enve, Hed, Roval, DT Swiss, and Mavic, buyers will have to wait for more data, but Industry Nine promises to be a worthy rival.

The company is no stranger to building robust wheel systems, and there is every indication that the i9 Road Disc range will be just as hard-wearing and dependable. The wide tubeless-ready rim bed keeps pace with the recent evolution in aero rim profiles, and it will also provide buyers with a plusher ride and more grip from the tyres. The absence of proprietary components is another plus, and the hubs are as pretty as they are functional.

But it is the range of options that really elevates the i9 Road Disc range, with three rim profiles, 11 different colours for the hubs and spoke nipples, and even optional custom-coloured rim stickers among the wealth of choices on tap. It’s hard to see how any buyer that is prepared to buy a high-end road disc wheelset could be disappointed by what Industry Nine has to offer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Industry Nine i9.65 road disc wheelset review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Let’s face it, bikes are an awkward item to store. They’re prone to toppling over, require space and there’s often more than one to worry about. In this installment of CT Recommends, we’ll be looking at the best indoor (or outdoor, if you’re that way inclined?) bike storage products and solutions.

Some of our staff have dedicated bike storage areas with carefully planned layouts, while others simply rely on floor space. Tech writer Dave Rome, along with input from the CT team, covers this topic.

As someone who has always had too many bikes and too little space, I’ve learned that the best way to store your bike/s is dependant on your available space, living situation and how much you believe in N+1. Hanging bikes vertically from the wall may be one of the most space efficient ways, but it’s hardly an option if you’re renting an apartment. Likewise, racks that store bikes horizontally above the ground require wall or floor space, something that will only work for those with room to spare.

Given this, this article is broken down into ways to store bikes, with favoured products for each method. Certainly, there are more ways to handle storing a bike, so please share what works for you in the comments section.

Lots of bike, little space: Vertically hung

Got some free wall space and a little depth to play with? Hanging bikes vertically from a wheel is arguably the most space-efficient way and it’s what you’ll find the majority of bike stores around the world do within their repair departments. It’s also what our global tech editor, James Huang, does with his hilarious number of test bikes.

Joining James, Neal Rogers, Caley Fretz and Matt Wikstrom all store their bikes with bike hooks sold at hardware stores. These are a cost-effective way to store multiple bikes, and can either be mounted directly into masonry with a wall plug or threaded into wood. If the former, I’ve found it easiest to first mount a piece of 2×4 timber, and then mount your hooks into that.

Bike hooks sold at hardware stores will do the trick for most, but there are other options.

I’ve had a fair amount of experience using the methods above and as long as you have the depth to keep the bikes perpendicular to the wall, my preference is to use Park Tool’s bike storage hooks over those commonly sold at hardware stores. The low-cost hooks sold by hardware stores (or at least those sold in Australia) are typically small, limiting you in the type of tyre or rim depth that can be stored. Likewise, the plastic-dipped coating has a habit of splintering (likely due to the snug fit from being too small), leaving a metal surface to scour your rims.

By contrast, the Park Tool hooks are available in three sizes: skip the smallest and go the middle “471 Oversized” option (pictured above, left), unless you have a fat bike. They’re super strong and really not all that expensive. Being able to store a bike with 50mm deep carbon rims (be careful about deep rims which have a non-structural fairing) or 29er mountain bike with 2.4in rubber in the same spot is why I selected the Park Tool hooks for my Most Loved Products of 2017.

Andy van Bergen has his bikes stored on SteadyRacks and the space saved is obvious.

Do you have the wall space, but not the depth? There are options which let you safely swing the bike to sit at an angle to the wall. This is exactly what our community manager, Andy van Bergen, did with his bike storage. His preference is to use the Australian-designed Steadyracks, the original swinging rack of its type. As Andy explains, “They fold and swing so you can stack your bikes like pages in a book.” No doubt, it certainly looks neat. I too have one of these, and if it weren’t for the high price, all my bikes would be hung on them.

While the SteadyRack is the easiest, most effective to use (once setup) and best choice if you have rims with a carbon fairing (such as HED), there are other options for swinging wall racks.

“I really like the Feedback Sports Velo Hinge,” says James, who has his bikes hanging with a collection of both Velo Hinges and hardware store hooks. “It works for both road and mountain bikes (the latter with an optional oversized hook), and the design lets you fold the bikes up against the wall to save space. If you’re really careful with how the bikes are placed, and the order in which they’re hung, you can space the hooks really close together. I’ve managed 14” (about 36cm) spacing.”

To add another option to James’s suggestion, Topeak’s Swing-Up bike holder is worth a look, too.

And yes, you can swing a bike sideways in a regular hook. Our editor-in-chief Caley Fretz does just this with his bikes squeezed within a small closet. The risk is that the fixed hooks won’t support the wheel as well in a sideways position, and you’re greatly relying on tyre traction to prevent the bike from falling out. Even Caley admits that he’d pick the SteadyRack if he had a more permanent space.

Lots of products in this space work well, but I must warn against getting the really cool looking products that simply grasp the whole bike by pressing the tyre into it (such as a product called Clug). I’ve tried these, and they’re hypersensitive to chosen tyre width, and if they do work, a slow tyre leak will likely see your bike fallout. When it comes to hanging your bike, pick function over form.

Flat to the wall and on display: Horizontally hung

Got plenty of wall space, fewer bikes and not much depth from the wall to play with? Hanging the bikes horizontally and parallel to the wall could be the way. With this method, the bike will only stick out to the width of your handlebars and pedals. And as a side benefit, it’s a good way to turn your prides and joy into showpieces.

Like the vertical hanging solutions above, there are plenty of options in this space. My pick is for a rack with some level of adjustability to fit with a variety of frame shapes – a product like the Feedback Sports Velo Wall Rack 2D is a solid option and simply holds the bike by the toptube. Topeak offer a similar, albeit less stylish, product too.

If you’re after something a little more designer, there are plenty of options if you look around. One such option is the Cycloc, which is a contemporary designed rack available in various colours. It’s not the easiest thing to install and needs adjustment specific to each bike it’s holding. I’ve used them in bike shops before, they do work once setup, but easier and cheaper options exist where form isn’t important.

View this post on Instagram

Recently had to deal with a fairly challenging bike storage problem, but @dahanger_usa’s Dan pedal hangers came to the rescue. This orientation won’t be the best for everyone, but it was ideal for this particular situation.

A post shared by James Huang (@angryasian) on Jun 17, 2018 at 10:06pm PDT

Those options all hold the bike via the top tube, but James likes an alternative which sees the bike held by the pedal at a 25-degree angle to the wall.

“Another thing I’ve tried is the DaHanger Dan Pedal Hanger. It takes up more space (compared to vertical hanging), but works well and looks neat,” he said. “They also come in multiple colours, and the design is refreshingly whimsical. I’d say this is almost more suitable for indoor use, since the bikes end up basically on display for everyone to see — driveside out and everything.”

The brand claims that you can fit three bikes on a 2.5m high wall, meaning they’re more space efficient than other horizontal hanging solutions.

Ceiling: Only spare space is above

Got a garage with spare space in the rafters? There are a number of companies that make bike hoists (commonly sold at hardware stores), allowing you to tether your bike by the bars and saddle and then hoist it up about head height. Frankly, no one in our team uses such a thing, but I’ve trialed a few and they do work once the painful install is complete. Just watch out for those tangles!

Personally, if you’re going to take this approach, you should take a clue from the crazy French mountain biker Yohan Barelli (EWS racer for Commencal). His electric-winch based rack system is seriously cool:

View this post on Instagram

This is #tutotuesday N*45 hahaaaaaaaaa!! How to create the dream garage ?? Step 1: have a garage. Step 2: have big height space. Step 3: install a pulley system for your bikes. Step 4: build some tires rack, helmets rack, tools rack… Well almost all the racks you can imagine for a family of bikers. Step 5: share your dream garage project. What do you think, not bad hey ??? Haha. @giantbicycles @ride100percent @srammtb #behappy #bebarelli #monstergarage #dreamgarage #barellosvideos #stoked #myproject

A post shared by BeHappy BeFree BeBarelli (@yoannbarelli) on Jul 25, 2016 at 9:07pm PDT

Freestanding: I rent or simply can’t be bothered installing anything

So those walls have to stay pristine, eh? Thankfully there are a few options to store multiple bikes in the effective space of one.

Mitch Wells stores two bikes, one above the other, on this free-standing product.

Mitch Wells, head of the CyclingTips Emporium, is in this exact position.

“Having the ability to move a tripod style storage system is important to me,” he said. “As a renter I don’t have the freedom to install permanent storage options. I would also rather not spend money installing and then removing a system in a place I don’t own. So the dual bike system from BikeHand works well for me.

“The system is easy to setup, with a number of quick-release-type fixtures that slide up or down, rotate or extend to provide the ideal storage solution for any type of bike. The horizontal fixtures adjust to your top tube angle — for those who have a little OCD like me, having both bikes wheels parallel to the ground is a nice detail. The wide tripod base is stable and I have never had any concern about instability and have avoided any near-disasters.

“The whole thing collapses into a sleek 1m long tube shape, which makes it easy to travel with if needed.”

This BikeHand rack is effectively a generic option, and again, Feedback Sports offers a stylish (albeit more expensive) alternative. Bike-Tree is another company to offer both free-standing or wall-leaning options, while Delta does too. I’ve only briefly played with the Bike-Tree products, but have used the Delta stuff in the past and know friends that have had the products for more than a decade without issue. A solid choice.

This rack squeezes in between the floor and ceiling, and offers space for two bikes.

If you’ve got a reasonably solid ceiling in place (or a beam), then a floor to ceiling extending pole is my pick over a free-standing product that takes up more space. I use the Feedback Sports Velo Column to store two bikes in a horizontal position on an adjacent wall to a few vertically hung bikes, and my previous place had this product inside the home. The Velo Column is the most stylish version I’ve come across and offers a huge amount of adjustment. However, it does rely on spring pressure to stay in place, and so precise setup is required for secure holding.

For more secure holding, I can recommend the Topeak Dual Touch. This features a large foot pad which levers the pole into a locked position. You can buy additional brackets, allowing up to four bikes to be hung from a single pole. It’s not nearly as stylish as the Feedback, but it is an effective and proven pick.

Grounded: Want to store your bikes on the floor? How boring.

If space isn’t an issue, then simply leaning bikes against walls or with saddle hung over rafters is going to work just fine too.

The PRO stand on the right is an example of a common stand that does a reliable job, but it won’t work with all disc-equipped bikes. On the left is a basic maintenance stand, but it requires a hollow crank axle to work – something that’s not all that common with road bike groupsets.

However, if you want your bike on the ground, but away from the wall, you’ll require a stand. Assuming it’s to hold a rim brake bike, I’ve had good success with the simple wheel stands from PRO (sold by other brands too). I use one of these to photograph many test and pro bikes. However, they don’t always play nice with disc-equipped bikes, and so something like the Feedback Sports RAKK or Topeak’s copy version — which support the bike by the outside of the tyre — may be a better option.

If you want to store multiple bikes, I’d suggest simply getting multiple single-bike stands. Cheaper multiple bike stands do exist but they’re often poorly spaced and so you can’t comfortably fit in as many bikes as they claim. Additionally, rim damage may be a concern with those multiple bike racks as they were never designed to be used with modern wheels that are wider than the mounted tyre.

And if you’ve got one, a workstand or similar repair stand is fine to store your bike with too. In the past where it has been an option, I’ll just keep a bike hanging over the workstand’s arm by the saddle nose. As long as it’s not at risk of being bumped, it’ll be fine.

What products do you use to store your bikes? What have you used before and didn’t like? What product would you love to use? Or do you just use the floor like a monster?

The post CT Recommends: Best indoor bike storage solutions appeared first on CyclingTips.

As bike preferences have grown more diverse, and automobiles have grown ever bigger and taller, the once-common roof-based bike carriers have steadily lost ground to rear-mounted racks that are not only easier to load, but usually don’t require you to remove the front wheel, either.

That said, roof racks are still preferred by many riders, and the latest generation of carriers that contact only your bikes’ wheels do a much better job of securing your precious cargo, regardless of dropout type, frame material, cable routing, or even ill-placed bidon cages.

Yakima was first with such an idea, and now Thule has joined the party. Tech writer Dave Rome has had plenty of experience with both brands, and here he compares the new Thule UpRide 599 against the Yakima HighRoad.

How they work

Both of these racks hold the bike upright by the front wheel.

If you lock the front wheel in an upright and straight plane, the rest of the bike will stay upright, too. Both of these racks work on this concept, and both create a secure and rigid hold that clamps the front wheel firmly in place.

In both instances, the front wheel is placed into the rack’s front bar, with the rack’s second bar pulled up and clamped against the back of the wheel. The rear wheel is then strapped into a regular wheel tray, and away you go.

However, Yakima and Thule each go about that front wheel clamping in totally different ways, and as this review will detail, the Yakima HighRoad does it better.

Assembly and Fitting

The Thule UpRide comes with T-Track bolts to work with a variety of premium crossbars.

The Thule UpRide comes out of its box mostly assembled, and includes T-Track hardware to work with newer crossbars from the likes of Thule, Prorack, and many others. Conversion kits are available if you have older rectangular or round crossbars, or any variety of factory crossbars that don’t incorporate the increasingly popular T-track channels.

The Yakima comes with a more flexible strap method for mounting.

The Yakima comes out of the box fully assembled, and uses an adjustable rubber-coated stainless steel strap system that attaches to virtually any crossbar shape. Sold separately, a conversion kit allows direct attachment to T-track crossbars for a slightly cleaner look.

Both racks can be configured for either driver or passenger-side mounting. The Yakima is by far the simplest in this regard, with the only difference being how the rear wheel strap is hooked in. In contrast, the Thule requires you to reconfigure a few parts via an easy-to-follow, IKEA-like picture manual (hey, it’s a Swedish company and they even include an Allen key!)

From a mounted length perspective, the racks are quite similar.

Total folded length of the Yakima HighRoad is 140cm, while the Thule UpRide measures in at a longer 164cm. Weight-wise, the Thule is marginally lighter at 7.85kg to Yakima’s 8.27kg figure. Both feature a rear wheel tray that slides free of the mounting mechanism, meaning you don’t need to worry about how your crossbar spacing will impact bike compatibility.

Both Thule’s T-Track and Yakima’s strap system work admirably well and are fast to fit, but I’m going to give the first point to Yakima due to its easier and wider universal compatibility straight from the box.

Security

Both racks feature integrated cable locks.

Both racks can be locked to the crossbar, and both also feature integrated cable locks that tuck neatly into the tray when not in use. The 8mm-thick cable on the Yakima seems more difficult to cut than the one on the Thule, but in both cases, the cable is only long enough to reach through the rear triangle and the rear wheel. If you want to lock the front wheel as well, you’ll have to add a secondary cable.

Thule includes two lock cores with its US$220/AU$369 UpRide rack: one to secure the T-track adjustment handle in place, the other for the cable lock.

The Yakima can also be locked to a car’s crossbars.

By comparison, the Yakima HighRoad is slightly less expensive at US$229/AU$349, but that price doesn’t include lock cores. Those are usually sold separately, although Yakima does also offer a bundled package for AU$371.

Both companies allow you to order lock cores to match your other similarly branded rack accessories, so you won’t have to keep adding keys.

Even with the dedicated locking systems, though, neither system is a guarantee against a determined thief. Yakima’s rubber-coated steel straps can be cut, for example, and it’d be just as easy to saw through the Thule’s locked handle. Always think of the locks on bike racks as a deterrent. If only because the locks are provided with the UpRide, Thule gets the first point here.

Loading bikes

Loading bikes on either of these carriers is far simpler than trying to line up a clamp with the bike’s down tube — as required by many older roof-mounted carriers — but the Yakima is in a league of its own for ease of use. You first raise the forward loop, then slide the bike’s front wheel into it, at which point the bike is already held fairly steady. From there, you pull up the rear hoop – taking care that the crankarms aren’t in the way – and spin the threaded knob to lock the front wheel in place.

The knob also has a convenient torque-limiting feature — not unlike many torque wrenches — and you simply tighten it until it clicks. It removes any guesswork over whether the bike is secure or not, but it does require a firm grip.

The Yakima’s design looks more rudimentary, but is actually easier to use.

Earlier generations of Yakima upright carriers required you to first set your wheel size with an adjustable front hoop, but the simpler HighRoad doesn’t require this. The trade-off is that where older versions would let you carry anything from a 20in to 29in-wheeled bike, the HighRoad will only work with 26in wheels and up. Yakima states the HighRoad will work with any tyre width between 23mm to 3.25in (83mm). In my case, the rack comfortably handled road bikes, gravel bikes, and a 29er trail mountain bike.

Thule’s design uses two independent arms that intersect and connect with each other.

The Thule retains that wider range of wheel size compatibility, fitting wheel sizes from 20-29in. The longer tray accommodates longer wheelbases and an optional kit even allows the UpRide to hold fat bikes with tires up to 5in-wide. But it still has more moving parts and is more cumbersome to use, and unless you’re carrying something really unusual, the Yakima’s shorter length is already more than enough even for super-slack enduro rigs.

The UpRide’s front wheel hook features a number of stepped positions, with a small window to show you the wheel size setting. Before you put the bike on the roof, this must be adjusted to fit the wheel size and is done by simply pulling on the spring-loaded knob and sliding the hook until it clicks into the right length.

If you only ever carry the one bike or style of bike, then this is something you can set and forget, although do be warned that when not in use, the front bar only folds fully flat when the forward loop is adjusted in one of the smallest wheel settings.

The two arms on the Thule UpRide must be connected together before final tightening.

The process to load bikes on to the Thule carrier is similar to that of the Yakima for the most part: load the bike’s front wheel into the front loop, and then pull the rear bar up. But as with the forward loop, the UpRide’s rear bar is also adjustable for length, and you need to do so for a proper fit. Complicating matters is the fact that both bars need to join in the middle to form an X-like structure, and if you get the lengths wrong, the connection points won’t meet up properly.

Once the forward and rearward arms are joined, you then tighten a plastic ratcheting lever (similar to what’s found on many cycling shoes) to tighten the bar down onto the front wheel, locking the bike in place.

Thule’s rear wheel tray uses a diagonal strap that works better than Yakima’s simpler left-to-right strap configuration.

Once the bikes are locked into the front part of the racks, the rear wheel is secured in place. The Yakima features a simple straight ratchet strap, which can be configured for left or right use. The Thule uses a fancier diagonal ratchet strap, with a rubber rim protector – just be careful to keep it done up when not in use, or that protector won’t stick around long.

The Thule has a safety lock. Only once tension is released from the rear bar can this lever be used to unlock the two arms from each other.

Removing the bikes is an easier process in both cases. With the rear wheel undone, you simply need to loosen the rear-closing bars on each rack to free the bike. The Yakima is the simplest: just loosen the knob all the way and pull the bar down. For Thule, you loosen the ratchet mechanism of the rear bar, and then pull down on a small lever at the base of the rack to release the “X” locking mechanism. From here, the rear bar is free to release.

The Thule system works and is pretty quick to use once learned. However, it also features a little too much plastic for my liking. Both the “X” locking mechanism and the rear bar ratchet are made of fiber-reinforced plastic, and while Thule has proven itself time and time again to make reliable products (backed by a five-year warranty), I’d still prefer to see more aluminium used in these wear points.

The Thule’s rear bar is more cumbersome than Yakima’s.

It’s worth noting that the Thule’s rear bar is quite thick and may present fitment issues on frames that have the front wheel tucked closely beneath the down tube. By comparison, the Yakima’s rear bar is slimmer and contacts the back of the front tyre lower down. Neither rack will work on a bike fitted with full-length fenders.

Thule’s rear wheel tray is better, but Yakima has the clear edge in simplistic design. Unless you need to carry kids’ bikes with smaller wheels, Yakima gets the point here.

The drive

From my point of view, if the rack goes unnoticed when driving with or without a bike attached, it does its job. And in this case, both the Thule and Yakima succeed in not making any distracting noises.

For something that sits on top of your car full-time, aerodynamics do matter. But unfortunately, without access to a wind tunnel, I was unable to see which rack is more fuel efficient and so can only make some educated guesses based on the frontal profile when not holding a bike.

Without a bike, the Yakima (right) clearly has a narrower frontal profile.

Nevertheless, Yakima seems to have the advantage here. It has a smoother surface beneath it and a more streamlined shape above. In contrast, the Thule greets the wind with a big fat cylindrical tube – a known aero no-no. This dubious point goes to Yakima.

The plastic base on the Thule UpRide noticeably flexes if you shake the mount side-to-side.

In terms of their hold strength, both racks grip the front wheel in a way you needn’t worry about. However, the Yakima feels more secure and wobbles less, something that is most noticeable with a heavier mountain bike. If you rock a bike left and right in the Thule rack there’s visible flex in the plastic base, especially around the rear bar’s connection point. It wasn’t bad enough that I was concerned about the safety of a bike (or drivers behind me), but that sort flex can only lead to long-term material fatigue, and so earlier worries of durability once again arise.

Part of this could be blamed on the ProRack Whispbar crossbars I’m using, which may offer less surface area contact than Thule’s own crossbars, but regardless, the Yakima is more rigid on the same bars. Point, Yakima.

Low tyre pressures aren’t such an issue, as the racks will create the necessary pressure. However, a flat tyre is still a no-no for this style of rack.

It should be mentioned that one big warning for this type of rack is that it relies on some front tyre pressure to work properly. Granted, even a tyre that gradually goes completely flat after the bike is mounted isn’t likely to fall out of the carrier entirely, but it’s still something to keep in mind.

Thule or Yakima, what to buy?

It’s pretty clear that Yakima stole the show with this one. Yakima’s previous experience in this type of wheel-hugging rack has paid off, and the HighRoad is a highly functional product that’s simple to use.

Thule has a well-deserved reputation for making market-leading racks with impressive attention to detail, and while the UpRide does many things right, it just doesn’t reach my high expectations of the Swedish company. If you like this style of roof-mounted bike carrier and just want to carry adult-sized bikes, buy the Yakima.

The Thule UpRide looks like a fancier piece of kit, but the Yakima HighRoad is easier to use, and that’ll be enough for most people.

Another angle of the Thule UpRide and Yakima HighRoad.

A side view reveals a stark difference between the two.

Bikes mounted. Both racks handled a variety of bikes without issue.

From the back, both racks are quite similar.

Yakima showed its experience with this style of rack and is deserving of the title.

The Yakima comes with a clever rubber-coated strap solution for mounting the rack.

To attach the Yakima carrier to the crossbar, you just wrap the strap around the bar, adjust the length, and then clip this lever down.

The front base of the Yakima reveals a smooth face.

The Yakima’s wheel tray is simpler than that of Thule’s, but it does work.

The Yakima’s integrated cable lock is marginally thicker than what Thule provides.

A closer look at the HighRoad’s base.

Tighten this until it clicks. Then you know the bike is secure.

Thule’s UpRide rack still has lots to like and the X-frame design is effective.

Side view of the Thule UpRide.

Thule’s rack comes with T-Track mounting hardware. It it possible to mount the Yakima on a T-Track, but adaptors are required.

Thule assumes you’ll be mounting the UpRide to newer crossbars that incorporate T-Tracks. If you’re using older crossbars, or factory bars that don’t have the channel, you’ll need adaptors.

The plastic base on the Thule is more prone to flex than the one on the Yakima carrier.

The Thule comes with locks, including one to lock the rack onto the front crossbar.

The second lock is kept tucked into the rear of the rack.

Wheel size adjustments are done with this grey knob.

Thule provides a small viewing window to show what wheel size the rack is adjusted for.

The black handle is used to slide the rear bar into place.

Pull the lever down and the rear bar ratchets tighter.

Press the lever in and the ratchet releases.

Without a bike mounted, the UpRide’s front bar bumps into other parts of the rack. It’s fine to drive with it like this, but you’ll have to reset the wheel size if you want the bar to sit flush.

The post Thule UpRide vs Yakima HighRoad bike rack comparison review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Princeton CarbonWorks is the brainchild of a few mechanical and aerospace engineering graduates from Princeton University who boldly claim they can do aero carbon road wheels better than established players like Zipp, Bontrager, Hed, Reynolds, Enve, and Roval. The company’s first product is the Wake 6560 road wheelset, an intriguing design with impressive-looking wind tunnel tests and better crosswind stability than looks might suggest. But nevertheless, other aspects betray the founders’ relative inexperience in the field, and the premium pricing is quite ambitious.

The thinking behind that curious shape

Princeton CarbonWorks’ unconventional-looking Wake 6560 wheelset draws its name from the 65mm and 60mm differential rim section depth, and also pays homage to the company founders’ collegiate backgrounds in competitive rowing. According to Princeton CarbonWorks, that wavy shape basically allows the Wake 6560 to behave like a deeper-section rim in terms of overall aerodynamic efficiency, but like a shallower-section rim in terms of crosswind stability — the best of both worlds, basically.

All of this theory was put to the test at the A2 Wind Tunnel in Mooresville, North Carolina, and the published results are certainly eye-opening. According to Princeton CarbonWorks, the Wake 6560 trounced conventionally shaped wheels of similar dimensions like the Zipp 404 and the Hed Jet 6 Plus — and even beat the conceptually similar Zipp 454 NSW — in terms of “time weighted average savings.” And even better, the Wake 6560 also beat wheels that were significantly deeper, like the Zipp 858 NSW and Hed Jet 9 Plus.

What do bicycle wheels have to do with competitive rowing? Not much, really, aside from the fact that the founders of Princeton CarbonWorks have a background in the sport, but also are avid cyclists.

Granted, Princeton CarbonWorks’ two rounds of testing at A2 were hardly comprehensive, and how the Wake 6560 compares to the sizable pile of remaining competitors remains to be seen. It’s also worth noting that comparing separate wind tunnel results in an apples-to-apples way is notoriously problematic, especially without intricate details on the test protocol used, so take all of these claims with a grain of salt. Princeton CarbonWorks only tested front wheels, for example, not complete bikes.

That said, even if Princeton CarbonWorks’ results are just mostly true, it’s an impressive feat for a startup with no other experience in the segment.

Princeton CarbonWorks claims some mechanical benefits to the shape, too.

Carbon fiber is immensely tough stuff, but its mechanical properties are only fully exploited when the fibers are loaded in tension; much like a piece of rope, there isn’t nearly as much stiffness or strength when it’s loaded in compression. Each Wake 6560 carbon rim has 24 lobes, and each spoke is anchored in those lobes such that the ensuing loads help to pull the surrounding fibers taut. As a result, says Princeton CarbonWorks, the rim can be made lighter than most other aero carbon rims of similar depth without sacrificing long-term durability. Claimed rim weight is less than 490g.

Deja vu

The Wake 6560’s appearance will invariably draw comparisons to Zipp’s inspired-by-whales 454 NSW, and although the exact shape of the inner edge of the rim differs between the two, the theory behind the shape is similar.

That said, is Princeton CarbonWorks borrowing design elements from Zipp? That’s a tricky question to answer.

Zipp declined to comment on the matter, but a dig through the patent filings suggests that Zipp’s claim relates more specifically to an asymmetrical wavy rim shape, not the symmetrical sinusoidal profile of the Wake 6560.

The Princeton CarbonWorks Wake 6560 rims’ wavy profile strike an intriguing profile.

However, a patent for a nearly-identical wavy rim design was granted to Dimitris Katsanis in 2011. Katsanis is a long-time industry veteran who normally works in the shadows, but has had more public stints at various points in his career. Several years ago, he worked as a technical consultant for the UCI; more recently, he helped Wahoo Fitness tune the shape of its ELEMNT Bolt GPS computer.

Katsanis acknowledged holding the patent for the wavy rim concept, but also declined to go into further details on any arrangements he may have with licensees. And perhaps not surprisingly, Princeton CarbonWorks is also somewhat cagey on the origins of the Wake 6560’s wavy shape.

“Princeton CarbonWorks is manufacturing and selling wheels, and SRAM is not stopping them from doing so,” said company co-founder and COO Paul Daniels. “It’s in Princeton CarbonWorks’ interest to spend our resources developing next-level product that surpasses our competitors. If we have to pay a royalty along the way because economics dictate that’s a better decision than litigating patent law, then so be it.”

Clear as mud.

The finished product

Although the origins of the wavy rim design are decidedly unclear, what’s not up for argument is that Princeton CarbonWorks has a real-life product currently on the market. The Wake 6560 is only offered in clincher form at the moment, but there are specific rim-brake and disc-brake variants. Both use the same tubeless-compatible profiles. Internal width is a modest 18mm, while external width at the rim’s widest point is 26mm.

Those rims are laced with Sapim CX-Ray bladed stainless steel spokes throughout. For the rim-brake version I tested here, Princeton CarbonWorks uses a radial front pattern and a radial/two-cross rear. Sixteen spokes are standard up front, along with 24 out back, but Princeton CarbonWorks also offers a 24-hole front option for riders that want extra durability and stiffness.

Many people will think that Zipp was the originator of the wavy-rim concept, but the idea dates back roughly a decade.

The standard hubs are rather generic, made in Taiwan by OEM specialist Bitex using slim aluminum hub shells, modestly oversized axles, and freehub bodies that are armored with steel reinforcements to prevent cassettes from digging into the soft surface. The driver mechanism uses a conventional pawl setup, with six steel pawls and a 24-tooth ratchet ring. Those pawls are arranged in two offset trios, though, so the effective engagement speed is a snappy 7.5-degrees.

Sealed Taiwanese-made TPI cartridge bearings are used all around — four rear, two front — and the end caps thread securely to the axles to help prevent creaking.

Both wheels come pre-taped from the factory for tubeless use, and extra-long aluminum valve stems are included in the purchase price, along with SwissStop Black Prince carbon-specific pads, steel-shafted quick-release skewers, padded wheel bags, and a factory printout of measured spoke tensions.

It’s common even for high-end products for actual weights to fall slightly adrift of claimed figures, but not so with the Wake 6560. My sample set came in exactly as advertised, to the gram: 655g for the front, and 840g for the rear, for a combined total of 1,495g including rim tape. Actual weight for the skewers is 86g per pair.

According to Princeton CarbonWorks, the Wake 6560’s wavy shape allows the rim to achieve the drag numbers of a much deeper rim, but still maintain the crosswind stability of a shallower rim.

Retail price for a standard rim-brake Wake 6560 wheelset is US$2,400; disc-brake versions cost an additional US$200. That seems curiously high given the inexpensive stock hubs and the questionable origins of the rim shape (although in fairness to Princeton CarbonWorks, the Wake 6560 is far less expensive than the Zipp 454 NSW). In case you’re wondering, that figure is comparable to Bontrager’s Aeolus XXX and Roval’s CLX range, and only a few hundred dollars cheaper than Enve’s SES options. Notably, all of those alternatives are equipped with custom DT Swiss hubs.

Chris King R45 hubs are available as an optional upgrade for the Wake 6560 wheels, but that pricing is even more of a head-scratcher. Princeton CarbonWorks charges a whopping US$800 for the swap — US$120 more than buying them outright at full retail, and far more than what other companies charge for similar upgrades. According to Princeton CarbonWorks, part of that cost is related to the Chris King wheels being assembled in the US, whereas stock offerings are built in Asia. But even so, it’s a tough pill to swallow.

Princeton CarbonWorks sells the Wake 6560 outside of the United States, but international pricing is based on straight currency exchange rates, and is subject to fluctuation. International buyers are also responsible for any local taxes and duties.

Putting the theory to the test

I tend to react to overly generous amounts of hype with a similar amount of skepticism, and let’s just say that the folks at Princeton CarbonWorks have zero doubts about the superiority of their product. But nevertheless, it’s hard to argue with what I experienced on the road, and there does seem to be something to the Wake 6560 shape.

Indeed, they’re wickedly fast in a straight line, and not in an overly subtle way. Having ridden countless other aero wheels over the years, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t notice something different about these — and not just on the first ride. I, unfortunately, didn’t do any properly objective wind tunnel testing as part of this review, but the subjective feedback was certainly very positive, and I have little reason to doubt the company’s wind tunnel claims to any significant degree.

Slab sides like this usually aren’t great in crosswinds, but the Wake 6560s are impressively stable.

As promised, the Wake 6560s are also quite stable when it’s blustery. I repeatedly sessioned the Princeton CarbonWorks wheels through my standard local crucible for rim stability, and despite experiencing a variety of wind conditions throughout my several months of testing, I came away impressed each time with how manageable these were. I wouldn’t say that the Wake 6560s were as easy to handle as shallow-section wheels when it’s gusty, especially when winds are swirling unpredictably. But they’re nevertheless more confidence-inspiring than I would have expected given the tall profile and slab-like sides.

Somewhat unusually for such a deep-section wheelset, the Wake 6560s are even very good companions when climbing: highly responsive, light-feeling, eager to accelerate. Torsional stiffness is very good, as is lateral rigidity. There’s no perceptible wind-up to speak of when attacking steeper pitches, and definitely no brake pad rub.

Speed isn’t everything

Speed may be the thing that people buying aerodynamic road wheels care about most — and rightly so — but bicycle wheels are dynamic and complex structures. Aerodynamic efficiency is important, as is stability and stiffness. But other factors come into play as well, and it’s here where the folks at Princeton CarbonWorks could use some more experience.

Braking performance leaves a fair bit to be desired, especially when viewed next to more advanced treatments like Zipp’s truly superb Showstopper sidewalls, or hybrid aero wheelsets that use specially treated and textured aluminum brake tracks, such as from Mavic and HED. Even with the included SwissStop Black Prince pads — unquestionably the best I’ve used for carbon rims — initial bite is only so-so on the Wake 6560’s old-school sidewalls. That improves under harder braking and when the rims build up a bit of heat, but it’d be nice if there was a more steady and gradual progression instead of the more pronounced ramp that these exhibit currently.

Braking performance in wet conditions was as you’d expect from a carbon rim with yesteryear sidewall technology, too: adequate at best, and occasionally terrifying at worst.

Whereas some more premium options utilize proprietary technology that yields tangible improvements in braking performance, Princeton CarbonWorks sticks with the status quo – and gets average results, at best.

Princeton CarbonWorks offers the usual platitudes when it comes to heat management, but certain elements of the data provided give me reason for concern.

“Glass transition temperature” is a term often tossed about when discussing carbon clinchers, and it’s worth a brief explainer on what that means. Essentially, the glass transition temperature is the point at which the resin in a composite structure begins to soften. Since it’s the resin that holds the carbon fibers together, it’s clear why a higher glass transition temperature is better than a lower one; once the resin softens, there’s basically nothing to keep the air pressure from blowing the edges of the tire bed apart.

According to Daniels, the resin used in the Wake 6560 has a specified glass transition temperature of 220°C. Furthermore, in-house testing at the company’s manufacturing partner supposedly shows that the rims only ever reach 140°C, meaning that 220°C spec should more than suffice.

However, the company’s three-step test protocol appears to include a pause in braking pressure in between each stage of testing, and previous tests by other companies have demonstrated that even short pauses in braking allow rims to shed quite a bit of heat. Perhaps more importantly, it isn’t usually during periodic braking when carbon rims fail, but rather prolonged application, which Princeton CarbonWorks’ test procedure doesn’t simulate.

JRA with the Angry Asian: The folly of rim-brake carbon clinchers

The presumption that 220°C is a sufficiently high glass transition temperature seems questionable as well. For example, Zipp engineers have supposedly measured temperatures over 300°C in steady-state testing designed to simulate prolonged and steady braking on long downhills, and assuming that scenario is more realistic, the Wake 6560 rims wouldn’t make it.

I didn’t torture-test the Wake 6560s myself for safety reasons, but I did find it at least encouraging that there was no noticeable pulsing under braking. Pulsing usually indicates a spot on the rim that’s slightly wider than it should be. It’s only slightly annoying in most situations, but also invariably where heat-related failures will occur since heat will build up more quickly there than elsewhere on the rim.

Will the Wake 6560s really hold up under prolonged, hard braking? I can’t say myself, and it could be argued that my 70kg weight isn’t sufficient to perform a reliable real-world test, anyway. But regardless, I’d personally feel more comfortable with a more rigorous test procedure.

Other concerns

Riders living in flatter areas less prone to heat-related wheel failures may be more willing to overlook the Wake 6560s middling braking performance and questionable heat-related durability. But even then, there are several other reasons to give pause.

Build quality is pretty good, with even spoke tensions all around and no detectable variances in true or roundness either when new or at the end of my test period. Princeton CarbonWorks doesn’t employ any strategies to even out the spoke tension between the two sides of the rear wheel, however, and the ones on the driveside display almost double the tension as those on the non-driveside — a solid recipe for fatigue-related spoke failures as the years and kilometers accumulate. A 2:1 lacing pattern would be very welcome here, and presumably easy to institute given the rear Wake 6560’s 24-hole drilling.

The stock hubs are also disappointing generic, especially given the price. They roll just fine, but the bearing spacing is fairly narrow front and rear, the bearings themselves are quite small, and the end caps don’t incorporate any supplemental seals. I experienced a fair bit of audible popping in the rear hub during the first few hundred kilometers of use, too, which often indicates that the pawls aren’t engaging as simultaneously as they should. That quieted down over time, but it was disconcerting nonetheless.

The standard hubs are built for Princeton CarbonWorks by Taiwanese company Bitex. Want something nicer? It’ll cost you. A lot.

Hub construction is very straightforward front and rear. The front hub uses an oversized aluminum axle and end caps that securely thread into place to prevent creaking.

Bearings are sourced from Taiwanese company TPI.

The rear hub uses a star-type flange on the driveside. It’s a visually appealing setup, but the overall configuration is disappointingly basic considering the wheelset’s premium pricing.

Stainless steel bars are embedded into the aluminum freehub body to help keep the cassette from digging in under load, but they don’t prevent scarring completely.

As with the front hub, the end caps on the rear hubs thread on to the axle to help keep things quiet. However, the threads were neither greased nor treated with any retaining compound. None of the end caps are fitted with supplemental seals, either. This minimizes friction, but doesn’t work as well as proper rubber contact seals at keeping water from contaminating the bearings.

Once the driveside end cap is removed, the rest of the rear hub comes apart by hand.

Although the hubs are relatively easy to service, the bearing spacing is very narrow, which doesn’t bode well for long-term bearing durability.

Note how far the rear non-driveside sits from the end of the axle.

The rear hub is fitted with a 24-tooth ratchet ring…

…but the freehub body’s six pawls are arranged in two stagger triplets, so the rear hub effectively behaves as if it was built with a 48-tooth ratchet ring for faster engagement.

In fairness to Princeton CarbonWorks, Bitex has a pretty solid reputation for durability. But even so, at this price, it’s reasonable to expect better.

I’d normally suggest the optional hub upgrade in situations like this, but the Wake 6560s are already more expensive than many competitors, and the pricing for the Chris King hubs is simply unreasonable.

An intriguing concept with lots of promise

I am of the mindset that aero wheels should be fast, of course, but they also need to be good wheels, period, especially at this pointy end of the price spectrum where the competition is incredibly fierce. To that end, the Wake 6560s fall short.

Braking performance is only average, there’s a big disparity in spoke tensions in the rear wheel, and as a brand-new wheel company, Princeton CarbonWorks has no legacy of build quality. If you want to nitpick, you could also argue that the 18mm-wide tire bed and 26mm-wide external rim width are behind in the times in terms of the sorts of tires that can be fitted before you being to compromise aerodynamic performance.

But the biggest demerit is simply value — or, rather, the lack of it.

At this price, there are a wealth of more enticing options out there, all with more proven track records, better support networks, more engineering resources, and superior hubs. Granted, Princeton CarbonWorks has a distinct story to tell with its sinusoidal rim profile, but even if you take the company’s wind tunnel claims at face value, that improvement in aerodynamic performance is still tough to justify from a cost perspective.

Perhaps at some point in the future the Princeton CarbonWorks Wake 6560 will be a more complete package. But that point isn’t today.

www.princetoncarbon.com

Princeton CarbonWorks claims that the wavy rim shape also provides some mechanical benefits by loading more of the carbon fibers in tension when the spokes are tightened.

Each Wake 6560 rim has 24 nodes, but the front wheel is built with just 16 spokes, so not all of them are used.

Sapim CX-Ray bladed stainless steel spokes are used all around.

The external-cam quick-release skewers require regular maintenance in order to generate sufficient clamping force. For the Wake 6560’s asking price, I would have liked to see titanium skewer shafts, too.

The post Princeton CarbonWorks Wake 6560 wheelset review: Small company, big claims appeared first on CyclingTips.

We’re now much closer to the end of the cycling season than the start, and for obvious reasons, most brands choose to launch their new bikes earlier in the year. The Tour de France was a cram-fest of new aero bikes from Cannondale, Specialized and Trek. So, for a brand to launch this late in the year suggests that it might be special enough to almost sell itself.

Is the new Cervelo S5 a bike that shines, and a bike that will see the newly partnered Sunweb team whip along with ease in 2019? CyclingTips sent roving reporter Dave Everett to Cervelo’s launch event in Girona, Spain, to find out.

It’s all about the V

The one standout design element that I’m sure is going to have cyclists arguing in cafes across the globe will be the new bar and stem setup. Developed with 3T, it’s similar in some ways to the Aduro integrated aero bar that Cervelo introduced on the P5 time trial bike in 2012. The new bar and stem may not quite rival the buzz we saw around the double-decker Hover bar that Canyon debuted on the Grail gravel bike, but I’m sure it’ll still divide opinions.

The bar and stem look fully integrated from a distance, but are actually two separate components so there’s still almost as much adjustability as usual. Cervelo has an out-front computer mount prepared, too.

The proprietary design accomplishes two jobs at once. Firstly, the cable routing for both mechanical and electronic drivetrains is now fully internal, and the split stem avoids tight angles for both shifting and braking. Secondly, the design is claimed to tidy the air behind the stem and around the rider. According to Cervelo, the new bar – along with a plethora of other aero upgrades that I’ll discuss in a bit – has shaved off 42g of drag (when measured along with the rider) over the current S5 that this new one is replacing.

“The entry into it [this bike] was the desire to bury the cables,” explained Cervelo product manager Phillip Spearman. “It seems a bit weird, but a lot of the time, people design a bike [first] then try and bury the cables. It turns out that concealing cables is remarkably complex for something that seems so simple. This bar is actually the function of first and foremost burying the cables.

“Cervelo wanted smooth cable lines. We have a history of only turning the cable on a single plane once it enters the bike. The goal as always was to have the cables passing through the middle of the bearing, so then you don’t have it swinging backwards and forth.”

The top-tier option comes equipped with the latest Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 and Enve SES 5.6 wheels. A very impressive package.

I really shouldn’t like the look of this bike; I’m a classics man. But in the flesh, it’s one handsome and elegant looking piece of engineering.

The new stem has a distinctive V shape to it. This was a result of the design team’s aim to tidy and hide the cable routing, but also to clean up the airflow.

I found the relatively shallow drops to be comfortable, but I didn’t get on as well with the aero-profile tops.

You can raise the stem in 5mm increments, up to 30mm.

The Di2 junction box is housed within the end of the handlebar.

Despite the integrated nature of the new bar and stem, there’s still the usual range of customisation. The stem height can be adjusted in 5mm increments with headset spacers, up to 30mm. The bars themselves can also be raised an additional 2.5mm, and the rotation set at 0°, 2.5°, or 5° angles through a series of shims. And since the bar and stem are separate components, length and width can be picked at will. The bars come in widths from 38cm through 44cm, and stems in length from 90mm to 130mm.

It is possible to fit a standard stem, too, although this would obviously cancel out much of the aero gains that the proprietary bar-and-stem combo offer. And to be brutally honest, it would look pretty ugly, too, but hey, that’s just a personal view.

Cervelo is also looking at the possibility of developing clip-on aero bars, and if everything goes as planned, it’ll be a very clean setup. The plan is to use the same mounting holes as the bar and stem, so the result should be very tidy.

A stiffer and lighter frame, updated geometry, and a slick new fork

That bar and stem may be the visual highlight of the new Cervelo S5, but what it’s attached to deserves attention as well.

Instead of a conventional fork with an internal steerer tube, the new S5 fork sandwiches the head tube at the top and bottom; there’s nothing but a threaded rod inside the head tube to preload the headset bearings. It’s just as slick-looking and unconventional as the bars, but it too is designed that way for a reason. With no steerer tube inside, the head tube (and the fork itself) can be made narrower and more aerodynamic, and the pseudo-dual crown layout is stiffer, too.

“The external fork design is really there to support the [internal routing] system,” said Spearman. “There is no steerer tube inside, just a tensioning rod, which means it’s hollow. This allows the cables to pass down smoothly, by passing through the bearings. ”

With no internal steerer, the head tube has very little bulk to it, which is perfect for cutting through the air.

 

Behind the head tube, the rest of the new S5 frame is visually evolved from the current model, but there’s a lot of change below the surface. Although tube shapes are basically carried over, for example, revisions in the carbon fibre lay-up make the latest version lighter than before. Claimed weight for a painted 56cm frame is just 975g, but claimed stiffness is up 25% at the bottom bracket, and 13% at the head tube.

There are even bigger changes in the geometry, which has been pulled over from last year’s R5. Stack and reach figures are carried over for a more predictable progression through the size range, and the handling has been toned down for more stability. The bottom bracket is closer to the ground for a lower centre of gravity, and all sizes get a longer (and consistent) trail dimension that both slows down the steering and reduces toe overlap.

“When we talk about improving the ride quality, it’s imperative to us that we pay attention to all sizes, and not only those sizes in the middle range,” said Spearman. “As such, we followed the precedent we set with R-Series, and we standardised the trail across all sizes. What this means, is that the smaller-sized riders are no longer asked to fight the instability issues associated with having too much – or mismatched – trail, and are riding a bike that handles the same as the benchmark 56cm.”

And what about the brakes? Sorry, rim-brake fans, but you’re out of luck. The new S5 is disc-only with 160mm-diameter rotors standard on complete builds; 140mm ones will also work for lighter riders.

Going along with the new flat-mount disc calipers are 12mm thru-axles at both ends. These use Cervelo’s version of the RAT (Rapid Axle Technology) design that corporate partner Focus introduced a few years ago, but with an additional safety feature to prevent unintended opening in mass-start road racing situations. For those wanting more traditional thru-axle systems, there will also be a threaded axle with a flush, tooled head available aftermarket.

 

 

 

Cable routing is clean and tidy throughout the frameset. The hose routing for the front disc looks particularly neat.

Pricing and build options

Cervelo will offer the new S5 in four complete builds, plus a frame-only option. Graphics are definitely on the more subtle side throughout — the higher-end build has an especially stealthy black/white/graphite scheme while the lower-end builds have a bit more colour. Retail prices are as follows:

Shimano Dura-Ace Di2: US$11,500 / AU$14,500 / €10,999 / £9,699
SRAM RED eTAP: US$11,500 / AU$14,000 / €10,499/ £9,299
Shimano Ultegra Di2: US$8,500 /AU$10,500 / €7,999 / £6,999
Shimano Ultegra mechanical: US$6,000 / AU$8,000 / €5,499 / £4,899
Frameset: $5,200 / AU$6,500 / €4,699 / £4,299

The new Cervelo S3: An aero bike for the masses

Also getting a revamp is the workhorse S3 aero road bike model, which, unlike the S5, will eventually be offered in both rim-brake and disc-brake form (just the disc-brake version will be offered initially). Like the S5, the frame shape is mostly evolutionary relative to the current S3. Frame weight for a 56cm size is claimed at a respectable 1,100g.

The new S3 has had a whole lot of engineering work thrown at it for 2019.

Up front is a more standard fork, and the matching stem and bars are a lot more conventional than the outlandish S5 cockpit. A fresh-looking forged alloy stem is paired with a mildly aero flat top bar, and combined with the new C-shaped steerer tube, the S3 allows for fully internal cable routing. I didn’t get to ride the new S3, but it seems like the more rounded handlebar shape will please more people than the huge flat platform the S5 bar offers up.

Either way, the S3 is quite clearly a bike the engineers are proud of, especially given the 102g of drag that the new bike supposedly saves over the old one. Most of this, we were told, is a result of the updated internal routing.

Retail prices for the new S3 are as follows:

Shimano Ultegra Di2 disc: US$6,500 / AU$8,500 / €6,399/ £5,459
Shimano Ultegra mechanical disc: US$5,000 / AU$6,300 / €4,499 / £4,159
Shimano Ultegra Di2 rim: US$5,999 / AU$6,000 / £4,999
Shimano Ultegra mechanical rim: US$4,000 / €3,999 / £3,699
Frameset (rim or disc): US$4,000 / AU$3,500 / £2,999

The seat tube on the S5 more radically follows the rear wheel. But the S3 uses a straight aero-profile seat tube with a cutout.

The fork and down tube areas on the S3 are more conventional than on the S5, but it’s still very clean and well executed.

The new font and graphics will be carried across the future range of Cervelo bikes and promotional material.

Like the S5, the S3 has two bottle cage mounting options on the down tube.

Internal routing is possible for both electronic and mechanical drivetrains.

 

The bar and stem on the S3 are much more conventional compared to what’s used on the S5.

The stem on the S3 is made from forged alloy.

 

There’s a bit of confusion regarding maximum tyre size on the Cervelo S5. During the presentation, the company said that only tyres up to 25mm wide would fit, but the official press materials say it’s 28mm. 25mm wide tyres are shown here.

 

Cervelo is using Novatec wheels across the S3 range.

The Novatec R5 wheels look like they carry all the design traits of what makes a fast wheel fast in 2019, but at a much cheaper price point. The guys at Cervelo spoke very highly of the range. It’s a brand we may look into further at a later date.

As with the S5, the seatpost on the S3 is a surprisingly tight fit. But as we were told, that is intentional — Cervelo says it’s better to have a seatpost that is slightly tougher to slide up and down when adjusting it than one that slips when riding.

Without a doubt, you’ll see a lot more of the new S3 than the much more expensive S5. It’s also arguably a more handsome bike.

S5 first ride impressions:

I’ll just preface this by stating that, bar a few design choices, I struggled to find much I disliked about the S5. So get set for what could be a taken as a bit of a flowery review. It perhaps also helped that Cervelo chose to debut the S5 in Girona, Spain. With a wide variety of terrain, minimal traffic, and perfect tarmac, it was admittedly the perfect setting for an aero bike launch.

It’s nice to see a frame that seems unfussy in its design language. Some of the more recent aero bikes seem to have more angles than a math class full of kids with protractors.

The S5 I rode was built with a Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 groupset and rolled on Enve’s SES 5.6 Disc carbon aero wheels, neither of which require a major review. As you’d expect, both performed flawlessly. But then again, at US$11,500 / €10,999 for that build option, it should be nothing but top-tier performance.

On the first day of testing, we easily knocked out an undulating 50km in just over 90 minutes, which I feel is more a testament to the bike rather than my current (lack of) fitness. Initial impressions were that, yes, this is indeed a fast bike. But unlike a few other aero bikes I’ve had the chance to play on lately, the S5 doesn’t scream its potential. Instead, the S5 Disc felt surprisingly balanced, going about its intended purpose without the usual aggressiveness that many aero bikes seem to have.

The tight rear end doesn’t make for an overly twitchy bike.

At speeds above 35km/h, the bike absolutely sings, holding its speed with ease. We rode in small groups of about 12 people for the launch, and there’s usually a bit of sketchy and nervous behaviour at these things: new bikes, new people, varying levels of ego, unfamiliar roads. Speeds often fluctuate a fair bit, and the group can turn quickly into a mini accordion of riders trying (but failing) to keep a steady pace. Whether I was lucky enough to get in a good group of bike handlers is up for discussion, but it seemed that everyone, including myself, was quickly comfortable and confident on the S5. A swift pace was set and wheels were kept confidently close together. Everyone just settled in.

While I quickly adjusted to the bike, I didn’t get along as well with the bars. The top of the bars felt slightly too big to grip, especially when wrapped, and the reach seemed too short. Lastly, the stock zero-degree bar tilt felt too low. I’m sure that tilting them with the available shims to either the +2.5° or +5° setting would quickly eliminate this problem, as might raising the hoods slightly.

How to set up road bike drop handlebars — tips and guidelines

Even with all the talk from the engineers about improving comfort before riding, I expected an overly stiff cockpit. The look of it alone seems like it’s built to favour the sprinters, and I expected it to knock the stuffing out of lighter riders like me. But, thankfully, the cockpit is stiff, but not excessively so, nor is it wooden-feeling like some other aero bars I’ve had the chance to use. Sure, it’s not an “all-day comfort” bar, but it manages to find a balance, much like the rest of the bike.

Bar shape is a personal thing, but these broad tops won’t be for everyone, especially those with smaller hands.

Comfort isn’t generally a focal point for an aero bike but, again, Cervelo has done a sterling job at creating a platform that doesn’t beat you up when out for a long ride. It’s not plush or on the same level as a top-tier all-around road bike, but it holds its own against many bikes that claim to be built for longer days in the saddle. It never left me feeling jarred when hitting rougher roads.

The same goes for climbing, and although we only tackled a few 1-2km rises, the S5 handled them in a manner that didn’t scream it was an aero bike. Instead, climbing felt natural, especially when out of the saddle.

Handling felt predictable and intuitive, and was put to the ultimate test when a small dog darted out while I was at the front of the group during the first day’s ride. It was a hairy moment that allowed the nimble – but not twitchy – steering and braking performance to shine. It’s something I was especially grateful for as I hear drinking tapas through a Spanish hospital straw isn’t the easiest of things.

Snappy sprinting is something that a bike like this should be able to handle without hassle, and the S5 definitely ticks this off the to-do list. I’ve found on many aero bikes that when putting the hammer down, there’s often an angry fight to keep the bike planted shortly after that initial kick. Instead, the S5 returned the effort with a smooth snap of speed. You’re never wrestling it to keep on top of the power.

It’s obvious to say that aero bikes should feel fast under you, but yet the latest incarnation of the S5 feels not just slippery, but it has a level of slickness that seems manageable and stable.

I really enjoyed this bike, and although I have a few complaints about the bar, and can’t comment on the ease of maintenance, the new S5 seems to be a bike that has come of age. It’s a matured ride, showcasing not just what Cervelo has recently developed, but also the knowledge garnered from those early Soloist days to the present day.

S5 Gallery

The all-new S5 Disc impressed overall. It’ll also be the aero bike of the newly sponsored Sunweb team for 2019.

The frame is boxy in places, but not huge or unwieldy looking.

The 25mm-wide tyre shown here certainly looks like a tight fit on the rear end.

The front end looks slightly more spacious, but still a bit snug.

 

 

Cervelo really wants to make sure the seatpost doesn’t slip. The fit in the frame is already quite tight, and the friction paste only makes it more secure.

Like the Cannondale SystemSix, there are two bottle cage positions. The higher one is better when two cages are fitted, but the lower one is supposedly more aerodynamic if you’re running just one.

The leaf spring-like shape of the previous S5’s seatpost has been replaced with a more traditional aero shape.

There’s also been a slight refresh of the Cervelo font.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Cervelo S5 Disc first-ride review: Even faster, more refined appeared first on CyclingTips.

A chain is one of the most common wear items on a bike and replacing it isn’t all that hard. All you need is some basic knowledge and the right tool.

That tool is a chain breaker. Chains are made up of a series of inner and outer plates, each held together with metal pins (rivets) that are surrounded by a washer (roller). A chain breaker works by pressing a chain pin out to disconnect a chain, and if required, driving in a new connecting pin to put it back together.

For such a simple tool, it’s amazing how many chain breakers fail to meet expectations. Some tools are sloppy, others don’t consistently drive straight, and some are just weak. Our own self-confessed toolaholic, Dave Rome, tested as many chain breakers as he could get his hands on. Which ones don’t make the cut? Read on to find out.

I feel strongly about quality tools that not only make the task at hand easier and the outcome more precise, but that you only have to buy once. Filling a large container with broken chain pieces, I spun, popped and chopped my way through back-to-back testing of 15 chain breakers, each priced under US$50 and aimed at the home mechanic.

While all the tools tested are capable of pushing a pin in and out of a chain link, they certainly do so with varying degrees of ease, comfort, reliability, and repeatability. A great chain breaker should be a tool that you simply drop a chain link into, and without having to think about it, drive the pin. Although the task seems straightforward, a poor chain breaker whose design doesn’t pay attention to detail may leave you with a bent chain pin, a scrapped chain, and/or a broken tool.

How the test was done

I sought to find the chain tools that offered the easiest, most comfortable, and carefree removal of stubborn chain pins. Durability absolutely played a factor, too, along with any additional features that might prove useful.

Qualitative testing proved too inconsistent. My test method used an accurate digital torque wrench to read peak torque, combined with an articulating oil filter wrench to turn the handle. However, this test was greatly influenced by handle thickness, and completely ignored the available leverage and actual comfort of the tool – often meaning the measured effort was nearly inverse to the perceived effort. As a result, the test was thrown out.

The winners were decided on an averaged score based on perceived value for money, comfort, ease of use, and durability. The value score was the most subjective, based on how well the tool functions, the general build quality, and what features are offered at the asking price. So, for example, some tools that include the ability to peen Campagnolo chain pins at a low price got a bump in this area, while the likes of Shimano’s tool, which functions wonderfully but has fewer features, took a hit.

What’s obvious is that of all of those tested, there is no perfect option. Additionally, it was a closely fought battle, and so you’ll find success with any of the picks at the pointy end.

How to use a chain breaker

A chain breaker isn’t a complex tool to use. If you take your time to ensure that the tool’s pin is driving the chain pin squarely, you’ll unlikely run into issues. Often the cheaper chain breakers require more care, while the better tools are better at self-aligning the chain for more reliably trouble-free operation.

However, sizing a new chain to length is a topic that deserves its own article. Visit Park Tool’s help section for specific guides in how to do this. Before you get to that stage, check out this easy guide on checking for chain wear. And if you’re planning on breaking a chain for preventive maintenance, then I’d advise against it. Learn more in our complete guide to chain cleaning.

Aspects to consider in a chain breaker

This wouldn’t be the ultimate chain breaker test without briefly geeking out over the finer details to consider when shopping for a chain breaker.

Chain Compatibility

Not all chain breakers will work with all chains. Often, the number of sprockets on your cassette will determine what chain breaker you’ll need, with chains often measuring narrower than older ones. A 12-speed chain is narrower than an 11-speed one, for example. The summary table (see below) will help sort tool-and-chain compatibility at a glance. Confusingly, though, some chain tools rated for 11-speed tool use will also work with the latest 12-speed chains.

Some of the tools tested self-adjust to accommodate multiple chain widths, using either a sliding chain shelf or a threaded backing plate that allows the user to manually set up the stop for the chain. Simpler tools generally use a fixed design and have more limited versatility.

All work and have their benefits, but I must warn that the tools with threaded backing plates must be used with care, and are therefore slower and more of a fiddle. If the threaded part is not adjusted correctly against the chain, it’s easy to damage the chain, the tool, or both.

Size = leverage

The tools tested vary greatly in size. However, as proven by the results, there’s more to it than leverage.

In most cases, chain breaker size is proportionate to price. Spend more and the tools often get larger. The increased size means greater leverage and increased comfort in the hand. With newer chains featuring extremely tightly-set pins, that increased leverage can certainly help.

However, there are obvious exceptions to this. For example, the X-Tools chain breaker tested is one of the heaviest tested, but reveals clear budget constraints in the build quality. Likewise, the Shimano TL-CN28 tool is small and mostly made of plastic, yet functions amazingly well.

If you’re seeking a chain breaker to fit in an emergency kit, then you’ll obviously favour one that’s lighter and smaller. Such tools weren’t the focus of this test, but a few of the more popular compact options were still included for good measure. Do note that the smaller size makes these tools harder to use, and so while they’ll work in a pinch, there are better options for the home workshop.

Pin design

A key piece to any chain breaker is the tool’s pin. This skinny pin is used to drive the chain pin and is a common point of failure. Most of the tools tested feature replaceable pins, and some even include a spare. Consider how readily available spare pins are, as it’d be a shame to throw away the whole tool over such a small part.

The tool pin can be fixed or freely spinning. Fixed chain pins thread in place (or are permanently bonded), while free chain pins are help captive by a small lockring, and typically rotate on a ball bearing. The later is something commonly seen with pro-grade tools and so the feature is often assumed to be superior. However, some of the best functioning tools on test feature a fixed pin.

Campagnolo chain breakers?

If you own or ever work on Campagnolo components, you’ll need a compatible chain breaker. All the chain breakers tested will work just fine with 9 and 10-speed Campagnolo chains. Likewise, many will be able to shorten 11 and 12-speed Campagnolo chains. However, those 11 and 12-speed chains require the chain pin to be peened after installation. This is a specific feature and not all that common at the tested price.

Additional features

Some tools feature a second chain shelf, with the extra shelf used for loosening tight links. I manipulate the chain in my hands instead, and most pro tools simply do without the feature.

Given that pin failure is common, tools with spare pin storage help to ensure you can keep going after failure. You can easily do without this feature, but tool pins are small and it’s nice to keep them in a known spot.

A chain hook is used to hold the ends of a chain together when you’re driving in a new pin. Such a tool can be produced by simply bending an old spoke, but it’s nice that a few tools include it so you don’t have to bother. Again, it’s not a feature you’ll find on pro-grade tools, but it is seen on a few here.

And the winners are…

The top three tools all ended up with the same numerical score, but Birzman still took the top honours due to its combination of comfort, ease of use, and value for money. And despite breaking enough chains that it got hot to touch, it remained perfectly straight and functional.

Next in line is Unior’s Professional chain tool. While smaller than the Birzman, this tool features the most precise build quality on test. However, that build quality is not an exact match between the two samples I had on hand. It’s also often more expensive, whereas many of the other choices can be found on discount.

While the placement doesn’t indicate it, my absolute favourite to use was the Shimano CN28. Despite its small size, it was the easiest and smoothest breaker to use. This one is the pocket rocket of the test, but is surprisingly expensive and that non-replaceable pin is a bummer, which is why it sits in this position and not first.

Park Tool’s CT-3.2 could have taken this test if it weren’t for the sloppy fitting chain shelf. Oddly enough, it always self-centred and drove the pin where it needed to go. With a full metal construction and great chain compatibility, it should serve a lifetime.

Coming in so very close are the Pedro’s Apprentice and PRO chain breakers. Find one at a good price, or buy it simply due to colour, and you won’t be disappointed.

Note that none of these top picks will peen Campagnolo 11 or 12-speed chains – a sign of the price. If you require such a feature, either spend beyond US$50 or accept the compromises and pick the X-Tools or BBB ProfiConnect. The BBB is the better-made tool, but the X-Tools (generic offering from Chain Reaction Cycles, Wiggle and Bike24) is often available on sale (at the time of writing this, it’s just US$20 / AU$31).

And if you want something to accompany a multi-tool on a ride, then get the Park Tool CT-5. It’s the simply the best pocket chain breaker.

Want to spend more? Pro-grade chain tools often include Campagnolo peening, generous handles, easy use and increased build quality. I also tested professional-grade tools from Park Tool, Pedro’s, and Shimano, but the highest score earned was still only an 8.5 (Park Tool CT-4.3 Master). In other words, you can certainly spend more than the US$50 cap imposed here, but you’re not likely to actually get much more for your money (unless you spend much more).

And if you want the details on each of the chain breakers tested, read on.

Best home workshop chain breaker: Birzman Damselfly Universal

With a unique aesthetic and one of the smoothest threads on test, this tool surprised me. The chain shelf is sprung for automatic multi-speed compatibility, but its captive design makes it more precise than the sliding shelves used on the Park Tool and Feedback items. Ergonomics are great, as is the aluminium construction. Admittedly, I’ve had mixed results with Birzman stuff over the years, but this one excels.

Pros: Ease of use, comfort, and durability.
Cons: Hard to find in certain markets, chain shelf has play in it. Campagnolo peening is reserved for the more expensive model.

Unior Professional

This is the only tested tool that’s made in Europe; it also features a durable, one-piece cast construction. I had access to two samples: one had the most precise-feeling threading on test, while the other was closer to that of similarly ranked tools. The high quality, hardened pin is long and spins on a ball bearing. Under load, the short handles require more force compared to other premium tools, but it’s certainly efficient enough.

Pros: Build quality, ease of use, reasonable comfort.
Cons: No Campagnolo peening on a self-proclaimed pro tool, surprisingly small for a pro-grade tool

Shimano TL-CN28

Leverage isn’t everything in a chain breaker, and this tool is proof of that. Despite its stubby plastic handles, this is one of the easiest and smoothest tools to use, easily rivalling professional tools. However, like the Topeak Universal, this lacks a replaceable pin. Instead, Shimano sells complete handle assemblies in case of (rare) pin issues. Redeeming this tool is that the pin is impressively strong, pro-grade in fact, and unlikely to need replacement under amateur use. It’s a simple tool, done really well.

Pros: Amazingly smooth and easy use, super precise
Cons: Price, pin isn’t cheap to replace

Park Tool CT-3.2

This is the newest version of what’s likely the most commonly found shop chain tool in the world. That’s for good reason, too, thanks to a tough cast steel body, a plastic-dipped metal handle, a strong replaceable pin, and a smooth-turning thread. However, it’s somewhat spoiled by a sloppy-fitting sliding chain shelf. That chain shelf does self-centre under load rather reliably, but it is also still somewhat prone to misalignment, which can cause the tool pin to jam and unwind itself (something that happened once, after over 30 uses). Still, it’s one of the most foolproof tools going and will work with nearly every chain on the market, but it won’t peen Campagnolo chains.

Pros: Strong build quality and easy to use, chain compatibility, well priced
Cons: Wobbly chain shelf spoils the deal

PRO Chain Tool

Don’t let the size or plastic construction fool you; this is an effective chain tool. PRO is the consumer arm of Shimano, and this shares the same hardened steel pin (a spare is provided in the handle) and ball bearing that you’ll find in Shimano’s pro-grade tool. The materials stop this from being a shop tool, but it’s a solid pick for the home mechanic.

Pros: Quality pin and chain shelf, simple to use and easier than the size reveals, spare pin provided in body, price,
Cons: Plastic handles, hard to find in certain markets.

Pedro’s Apprentice

Sharing the same body and handle as the $30 more expensive Pedro’s Pro tool, this Apprentice tool immediately feels like a quality item in the hand. Where the Pro version offers Campagnolo peening and a patented spring-loaded pin housing that clamps the chain in place, the Apprentice version is greatly pared back. Still, what you get is a solid tool which holds the chain snug. The oxide coating on the thread, along with a rotating pin without a bearing behind it lead to a rough and heavy feel under load, preventing a better ranking.

Pros: Good ergonomics, solid construction.
Cons: Rough feeling thread, high price given the simple features.

Lezyne Classic Chain Drive

The Lezyne Classic Chain Drive is arguably the classiest looking contender with its large wooden body handle, cast steel body and polished handle. It’s the nearest visual match to the tools priced out of this test. Like the other Lezyne tool tested, this suffers from a low chain shelf, but makes up for it with a threaded backing to lock in the chain. That wooden handle is hollow and stores a spare pin. Appearances had me thinking this would be a test upsetter, but a lack of Campagnolo peening, a sloppy feeling thread and a need to lock the chain in with the threaded backing all take some joy away.

Pros: Classy to look at, works with any speed chain, mega leverage, comfortable handles.
Cons: Not that quick to use, sloppy fit, no Campagnolo peening feature.

BBB ProfiConnect

This is effectively a higher quality version of the X-Tools Pro Rivet Extractor below. It offers a separate (and stronger) Campagnolo rivet peener (just don’t lose it!), a chain hook and more comfortable use. Also, the pin is longer and chamfered, staving off signs of mushrooming for a handful more uses than the X-Tools below. The two are clearly out of the same factory, but the increased price for the BBB version is warranted.

Pros: Super comfortable and with great leverage, feature packed for the money.
Cons: Threaded backing means it’s still a fiddle to use, separate Campagnolo Peening bit is easily lost.

X-Tools Pro Rivet Extractor

This somewhat generic tool can be found online for impressively low prices. It shares a near identical body to BBB’s ProfiConnect, and offers leverage and comfort that’s competitive with far more expensive tools. Smashing price expectations, a spare pin and Campagnolo peening insert are included. The thread depth collar on the handle is a feature only found on this and the BBB tool, and isn’t something I’ve found a need for. The pin is surprisingly stubby and mushroomed during testing, while the threaded backing plate is more a fiddle than a true benefit. The general finish quality matches the low cost, but this tool should serve the occasional home mechanic well.

Pros: Astonishing feature list for the (often discounted) price, comfortable to use.
Cons: Low-cost build quality, pin durability woes and adjustable backing plate makes it a fiddle to use.

Feedback Sports Chain Pin Press

This shiny tool features a similar shape body to Park Tool’s CT-3.2, but with a more comfortable, albeit plastic, handle. The spring-loaded chain shelf provides fool-proof multi-speed adjustment, but as mentioned in my review of the Feedback Sports Team Edition toolkit, this feature is ruined by the closed body design. Once a joining pin is pushed through, it can be tricky to remove the chain from the tool. Feedback needs to open up the pin exit area like every other tool on test.

Pros: Easy and comfortable leverage, fair price
Cons: Closed body design traps chains with freshly installed connecting pins. Flexy plastic handles.

Topeak All Speeds Chain Tool

This tool offers a large sliding hollow aluminium handle, solid feeling construction and a Campagnolo peening anvil that simply flips into place when needed. The handle stores a spare pin (captured to not fall out) and a quality chain hook. The thread is reasonably free of play and smooth. There’s lots to like about this tool, but it’s let down by what seems like soft pins. I bent two in quick order. So close Topeak.

Pros: Full featured, easy Campagnolo pin peening without an extra part to lose, good size
Cons: Pin durability

Best pocket-size chain tool: Park Tool CT-5 Mini Chain Brute

Though Park Tool’s CT-5 Mini is the smallest and lightest chain breaker on test, it proved durable enough for home use. At just 76g, it’s easily pocketable and is commonly found accompanying multi-tools in trail-side repair kits. The replaceable pin is identical to that used in the CT-3.2 chain breaker and offers smooth and consistent usage. The tiny size and poky handle mean it’s best kept for emergency use, but that aside, it’s the closest mini chain breaker to a shop quality tool I’ve used.

Pros: Size and weight, price, proven design, great durability, readily available replacement pins
Cons: Poky handle and tiny size leaves minimal leverage

BBB Nautilus II

This was a hard one to categorize, but at under 100g, I put it here. A spare chain pin and chain hook are included, both carried in the rubber-coated body. The Nautilus offers a smooth thread and a threaded back support, allowing fine adjustment for various chain types. The pin quickly mushroomed, though, which suggests that the metal used isn’t as hard as it could be. Care must also be taken to ensure the threaded back is supporting the chain correctly. It’s a good low-cost option, but not without compromise.

Pros: Price, plenty of features and great compatibility thanks to the threaded back support.
Cons: Too large to be a pocket tool, and a little compromised as a home workshop item.

Lezyne Chain Drive

With four spoke wrenches integrated into the body, the Lezyne Chain Drive is clearly made as a functional travel or emergency tool. The quality, size, or weight isn’t as good as the Park CT-5, but it does the job. It features a comfortable body handle and a replaceable pin (a spare is included). The small chain shelf means care must be taken to ensure the pin is driven straight.

Pros: Offers multiple tools, comfortable use, price, spare pin included
Cons: Compact chain shelf can cause alignment woes, rubber end caps used to hold in the sliding handle

Topeak Universal Chain Tool

The lowest-cost tool on test, this little 84g chain breaker includes a small chain hook. The handles are long enough to break the toughest chains, but unfortunately, the build quality means this is best used for emergencies only. The threaded body handle unwinds itself (although this is easily remedied with thread retaining compound), and after a few uses, the non-replaceable pin (Topeak sell a replacement handle and pin assembly instead) became mushroomed and then bent. It could still be used after this, but only just.

Pros: Price, included chain hook, good handle length
Cons: General build quality and non-replaceable pin

Got a chain breaker you love? Have any given you something to complain about? Let us know in the comments section below.

The post The best chain breaker for the home mechanic: 15 tested appeared first on CyclingTips.

Shimano has steadily been expanding its range of products far beyond just bicycle componentry, and while the brand has sold eyewear for several years now, it’s only just recently begun offering it in the United States. Even more recent than that is the debut of a flagship S-Phyre range of cycling sunglasses, intended to go head-to-head with the best from Oakley, Smith Optics, and other well-established frontrunners.

Does the new S-Phyre X model hit its mark? Sort of, says CyclingTips global tech editor James Huang.

Shimano probably isn’t the first name you think of when shopping for cycling sunglasses (or probably even the second, third, fourth, of fifth), but the latest S-Phyre X makes a solid case for that situation to change.

For a comparatively modest US$150 / AU$N/A / £TBC / €160, you get two interchangeable polycarbonate lenses, two nosepieces, two sets of colored frame accents, a soft carrying bag, and a semi-rigid carrying case – not bad. Buyers have their choice of photochromic or polarized tints as their main lens, depending on region, and a supplemental tint for low-light conditions is included.

The reasonable price includes two lenses, two sets of lower frame covers, a soft carrying bag, and a semi-rigid carrying case. At least as compared to the more established brands, it’s pretty decent value.

All of the lenses are treated with “Super Hydrophobic” coatings on both the inner and outer surfaces to help keep them clear of water and sweat, and Shimano also claims the anti-scratch treatment applied is, “3x more durable than regular coatings.”

Naturally, Shimano proudly touts its partnership with the LottoNL-Jumbo team in the development of the S-Phyre X — but sadly, the yellow frame accents are reserved solely for the team.

For this review, I opted for the “Optimal PL Red MLC” main lens, whose darker tint (16% total light transmission) and 80% polarization would be better suited for Colorado’s intense, high-altitude sunshine.

They’re pretty good, actually

Shimano may be relatively new to the eyewear game, but you’d be hard-pressed to tell based on the S-Phyre X’s performance. Lens clarity is outstanding, and lens distortion is minimal (albeit still very slightly noticeable). Coverage is very generous, with the edges of the lens only noticeable if you’re really looking for them, and only the slightest hint of airflow careening across your eyes even on very fast descents. I especially appreciated the extended coverage up high, a trend originally started by 100% and carried forth by many other brands.

By raising the lens relative to the ear stems, the Shimano S-Phyre X sunglasses provide an expansive field of view – especially up top – and yet still minimize interference with helmets.

Despite the half-rim design, the frame is admirably rigid and offers a comfortably snug hold on my fairly narrow head, even when wet, thanks to the non-slip rubberized ear stems and nosepiece. Interchangeable or adjustable nosepieces are becoming increasingly popular (both as a way to accommodate different face shapes and as a way for riders to customize the fit overall), but Shimano’s solution is particularly clever.

The two included nosepieces can be swapped, yes, but each one can also be flipped left-to-right, meaning there are actually four different lens height options, and no worries about a pivoting or bendable nosepiece losing its adjustment over time. Even better, the nosepieces attach securely with virtually zero chance of falling off by accident — something I can’t say about some other sunglass models I’ve tried recently.

Each of the two included nosepieces can also be reversed left-to-right, thus yielding four possible fits for fine-tuning. It’s a smart system, and the nosepieces are reassuringly robust.

I have mixed feelings about the Optimal PL Red MLC lens, however. The dark tint and semi-polarization does an excellent job of toning down the sun’s rays, but the tint varies slightly from top-to-bottom, so how the world looks can differ depending on how your head it tilted.

More disconcerting, however, was how the tint also varies a bit from left-to-right, especially in terms of the polarization. Car windshields occasionally took on a weird appearance, for example, with the reflection sometimes being visible in one eye, but not the other. At times, it was almost like I was looking through one of those cheap 3D movie glasses, albeit in a much more subtle fashion.

But even though the effect was subtle, I still could have done without it.

Additional bits clip on the lower edge of the lens to provide a full-frame look, if that’s what you prefer. I found them to be distracting, though, and ultimately went without.

Shimano included an additional photochromic grey lens for the review, and, thankfully, that experience was more positive. It doesn’t get as dark as the Optimal PL Red MLC tint, but it gets the job done in most sunlight conditions, and also gets sufficiently light that I was comfortable using it during dawn and dusk hours as well. Unlike with the polarized lens, there were no issues with uneven tinting or odd reflections.

Most surprising was the Cloud Mirror spare lens, which, at 85% light transmission, is virtually clear, but with a very slight tint that blocks out the bluer end of the color spectrum. These still retained my ability to see in very low-light conditions, but rendered the bluish hues of LED headlights (mine included) in a more natural color. The effect was especially noticeable when trail riding after dark, where I found it a little easier to pick out ground texture and other features that normally get washed out in high-powered headlamps.

The shimmery black frame is impressively rigid despite the glasses weighing less than 30g. They fit snugly and stay put.

None of the lenses offered anywhere near the dramatic increase in visual contrast and acuity as Oakley’s class-leading Prizm range, though.

Aesthetically, Shimano’s eyewear department could also use a boost in its creative capabilities. The S-Phyre X glasses look just fine as is, but the overall look is arguably derivative and somewhat uninspired. With the optional lower frame pieces clipped in (they’re purely for show), one might understandably mistake the S-Phyre X for a pair of Oakley Jawbreakers. But without them, they’re a little generic.

The texture on the temples isn’t just for show; it actually seems to work.

Close, but no cigar

Shimano is only just getting into the high-end eyewear game, so it’s understandable that its first effort isn’t a home run; these S-Phyre X glasses are good, but not great, and I’m not sure they live up to the lofty standards Shimano clearly aspires to with the rest of its S-Phyre collection. However, if Shimano figures out how to refine its lens tints to bring them more inline with what its more advanced competitors have to offer, and if the company’s designers start juicing up with a little more caffeine in the morning, then we might have a real contender on our hands here.

Given Shimano’s penchant for not being entirely satisfied with “OK”, my guess is that time will come sooner rather than later.

Shimano S-Phyre eyewear is currently not available in Australia. Shimano Australia offers more budget oriented eyewear models outside of the S-Phyre range. To read more about the S-Phyre X, click through to the Shimano website.

The post Shimano S-Phyre X sunglass review: Horseshoes and hand grenades appeared first on CyclingTips.

Looking for a new lid? In this installment of CT Recommends, tech writer Dave Rome shares what road helmets members of our team choose to use and why.

Helmets are no doubt a subjective item, and what works for one head may not work for another, but the suggestions in this article may help to reduce the number of helmets you should try on.

Elements to consider

The strangest part about road helmets – or cycling helmets in general – is that the amount of safety they provide is relatively unknown. Brands are required to meet relevant European, American, or Australian standards, but no brands publish the actual test numbers. As a result, a helmet that just barely meets the minimum standard can be marketed on equal footing to one that far surpasses it, and the merits of additional safety-focused features like MIPS and alternative liner materials are largely a mystery.

Thankfully, third-party cycling helmet testing has begun, and as that continues to expand in scope, objective safety data hopefully become a key element of product design and marketing in the future. It’s long overdue, and there certainly can’t be many other products out there where the quality of the core function is unknown by the consumer.

After safety, the fit of the helmet is next in line. Simply put, a helmet that doesn’t fit well can be uncomfortable at best, or inadequately protective at worst. Helmet shapes can differ substantially between brands and even model lines, so it’s always best to try on a helmet before buying. Ideally, a helmet should closely approximate the shape of your head before resorting to built-in adjustments and fit systems, and without any signs of pressure points or discomfort. Likewise, avoid helmets that are too large and leave the helmet free to rock on your head. The retention systems provided on helmets should be used to refine the fit, not make it.

Retention systems are designed to refine the feel of a helmet that is already a decent fit to begin with, but a good (or bad) retention system can still make or break your decision. Higher-end models typically have a broader range and wider selection of adjustability, so check to make sure the helmet can be adjusted to your liking. Also be sure to take your preferred eyewear in with you when trying on a helmet to ensure they fit; it’s not uncommon for glasses and retention systems to not get along well together. And if it’s important to you, make sure the helmet provides space for you to store your eyewear when not in use, too.

How the strap splitters sit around your ears is an important thing to think about. Some helmets still get this very wrong.

Not to be ignored are the straps, which obviously serve an important safety function, but are commonly a point of nuisance. Look for straps that sit flat to your face, and can be adjusted to flow around your ears and not over them. Likewise, the buckle should feel comfortable underneath your chin, without pressing on your neck.

It’s only once you’ve identified a secure and comfortable fit that you should consider additional features. Airflow, ventilation, low weights, aerodynamics, and aesthetics are all elements to consider (and things we commonly cover in our helmet reviews).

Our favourite road cycling helmets

Kask

Kask’s association with Team Sky has no doubt helped with the Italian company’s visibility and business success in recent years. Many members of the CyclingTips team have used Kask helmets, and while different models were mentioned by various staffers, it’s this brand that gets the most suggestions.

From left to right, the Kask Mojito, Protone, and Valegro. The aero Protone and super airy Valegro headline the range, with the Mojito now moved to a lower price point than before.

CyclingTips founder Wade Wallace is one such Kask proponent. Although he loves both his Specialized S-Works and Giro Synthe lids, he admits that the Kask Mojito would be his pick if he could only have one helmet.

“I have so many helmets and the only one that stands out as being my favourite is the Kask Mojito,” he said. “The only reason for that is because of the nice finishing touches it has on the [leather] strap, the interior padding, the dial, and the styling.”

While it’s no longer his first choice (I’ll get to that), Neal Rogers also rates the Kask Mojito highly.

“[It’s] light, small, well-fitting, and well ventilated.”

I personally bought a Mojito thinking I’d found the perfect fitting helmet for my fussy oval head (I often sit between a small and medium in most brands, but a small Kask fits me perfectly), but soon realised the leather chin strap gave me a choking sensation. The ear stems of my Oakley Radars also overlapped with the helmet’s retention system. It’s something Wade has found, too, but it isn’t an issue with the shorter-arm Oakley Jawbreaker he prefers to wear. However, Wade did remark that the Mojito is, “terrible for eyewear storage”.

The Valegro is Kask’s latest lid, designed for hot days in the mountains or any ride where low weight and excellent ventilation are high priorities.

New to the Kask range, and sitting above the Mojito, is the Valegro. It’s the most comfortable helmet I’ve used. It’s silly light, extremely breathable, and I like the look of it, too. More importantly, unlike my experience with the Mojito, this one works well with sunglasses and the leather chin strip doesn’t choke me. However, since finishing my review (which I’ll update shortly), the retention system has only become sloppier and a slipping ratchet system just doesn’t belong in a helmet this price. That’s obviously disappointing, but not quite a deal breaker in my book (although it’s close).

A final nod for Kask comes from Michael Jeffs, a member of the CyclingTips Emporium team and a privateer NRS racer. He chooses the Kask Protone, the lightweight aero lid that sits above the Mojito and alongside the Valegro.

“It’s a great fit, relatively small overall, super light, and offers plenty of ventilation for an aerodynamic helmet. It has lots of colour choice, too.”

Bell

CyclingTips global tech editor James Huang is a loud proponent for the Bell Z20/Zephyr. “It’s not particularly light, but I find it super comfortable, extremely well ventilated, and the sweat management system is, far and away, the best I’ve seen. You never get sweat in your eyes ever, which I can say about no other helmet I’ve ever used. I also like that it has an integrated MIPS liner and a two-layer, dual-density foam liner, all of which bodes well for safety.”

The Bell Z20 (also known as the Zephyr, depending on region) is a top pick for those with a naked head. (Photo: James Huang)

“I should perhaps also mention that I might place a higher priority on sweat management than some other people because I shave my head; the sweat has nowhere to go but down. But the fact that only Bell has managed to figure out how to keep sweat out of my eyes is astounding given how common the issue is. Every other helmet I’ve used is only marginally ok in this at best, and often outright terrible.”

Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom also has a shaved head, and while he backs James’s choice, he also likes a new mid-range model in the Bell range that shares many of the Zephyr/Z20’s features.

“Plus one for sweat management from another baldy; Bell’s sweat guide is a big improvement. I was waiting to see if Bell would move the sweat channel feature down from the Zephyr, and the Falcon might be the first in the range to get it. That Falcon also has MIPS, so it almost punches above its price point.

“The Bell Falcon satisfies my sweet spot for function and affordability. I can’t spend more than $150 on a helmet; the bells and whistles aren’t worth it when a helmet is just a split second away from being rendered worthless. I’d rather take advantage of the trickle-down in features, which is quite impressive.”

Specialized

The Specialized Prevail II is a highly recommended helmet, although it’s mainly the second choice amongst the team.

For James, a close second to the Bell Z20 is the lightweight Specialized S-Works Prevail II.

“It’s wickedly light, exceptionally well vented, and extremely comfortable. But it’s a bit fragile, and although there’s a dual-density liner, there isn’t a MIPS-equipped option. Fit-wise, Specialized is the best for me. A size small feels like it was molded around my head. Anything super round can be problematic for my head, such as Limar. Oval headforms tend to fit me better.”

And oval the Prevail II is. Where James has found perfection in the small, it’s just a couple of millimeters on the narrow side from being perfect for me. Alas, as usual, I’m awkwardly between sizes in this well-loved lid.

Our Ella editor, Simone Giuliani, also rates the S-Works Prevail II.

“It’s my helmet of choice. So light and airy I almost forget I’m wearing it. It’s good for my oval (pointy) head, too, as so many others look ridiculous and bulky. Plus, it is a simple, stylish design (not flashy) so I feel like I’m wearing the helmet; it’s not wearing me.”

And Wade shares James’ sentiments, putting the Prevail II as his second favourite helmet.

“It’s my longtime favorite for looks, but it doesn’t have the nice finishing touches that the Kask helmets have.”

Giro

The Giro Synthe is a well-rounded aero helmet that has stood in Giro’s range for a number of years.

For new CyclingTips editor-in-chief Caley Fretz, his pick is Giro’s staple aero road lid, the Synthe (sans MIPS).

“[It’s] Low-profile, looks good. And the retention system doesn’t try to get all fancy.”

Caley openly admits that his decision isn’t based on Giro’s claimed aero benefit; his preference for the Synthe is based on how it fits.

“My head is pretty narrow. It doesn’t give me the ’shroom look’, and fits nicely.”

Wade and I agree with Caley on the Synthe, and find the helmet to be a comfortable all-rounder.

Neal Rogers also puts Giro as his top pick, but chooses the all-new Aether, which use the latest incarnation of MIPS technology. Instead of adding a separate liner inside the foam, the new MIPS Spherical is integrated directly in between two floating shells, like two helmets nested one inside the other with a low-friction layer in between them.

“I rate the new Giro Aether higher than any road helmet I’ve ever used. I love everything about it but the price.” [The] fit is perfect. It’s light and svelte, and apparently very aero, according to Giro. It’s always been a bit difficult to know how much credence to give to the MIPS system in terms of brain protection, but it’s clear to the eye (and hands) how the proprietary MIPS Spherical system would be effective. I love the rubber eyewear grippers on the outer vents. I think the shape is about as elegant as a road helmet can be, and the piece of thermoplastic resin that runs across the top looks really cool. Also, the matte black/blue pearl color is a showstopper.”

POC

No other helmet creates so much of a love-hate debate as a POC. But for our production editor, Iain Treloar, it’s a winner.

The POC Octal MIPS spurred on a new generation of performance lids where safety was a selling point.

“I’m a POC Octal man through and through. I like the aesthetic, the coverage, the light weight, and the ventilation. [That coverage] feels like it’s properly covering my head rather than sitting on top of it – almost like a Fox Flux or similar mountain bike helmet, but for road.

Iain is such a POC devotee that he has not one Octal helmet that he uses regularly, but two.

“I have both the MIPS and non-MIPS versions. I slightly prefer the fit of the latter and it gets less stinky, but I wear the MIPS more because of safety, plus it’s orange. There’s better sunglass retention in it, too, especially for Oakleys, but they’re useless for POC sunnies, which is weird. The main downside is that they’re offensively overpriced.

“I’ve used the Kask Protone, Mojito, Dieci, and Rapido. Also, the Specialized Evade, Lazer Genesis and Lifebeam, and something by Louis Garneau. They’re all much worse-fitting for me than the POC, probably because I seem to be stuck precisely between medium and large in all those examples.”

Bontrager

Our roving reporter, Dave Everett, rates Bontrager’s aero-influenced Velocis.

“I’ve been using the Bontrager Velocis MIPS a bunch lately. It fits great, is well-ventilated, and for traveling, it’s ideal. The shell wraps the EPS foam all over, and stops it from getting bashed up in the backpack. Plus it’s pink; always a winner.”

The Bontrager Velocis is similar to the Giro Synthe in that it’s a well-rounded aero lid.

“It’s not as well-fitting on my head as the POC Ventral, which I was liking a bunch, but found out at a recent event that it’s far from a well-ventilated helmet in the heat on long rides. The SPIN technology [in the POC] and MIPS in both helmets make me pick them over other helmets I have that lack such safety tech. I think becoming a dad has made me way more aware of self-preservation than before, so I think this plays a factor in helmet choice now. That recent independent study rated the Bontrager highly, too, for safety.”

SH+

And finally, our Australian editor, Matt de Neef, has his preference for a lesser known lid.

SH+ may not be the most popular helmet brand, but the Shabli Evo nevertheless has (or rather, had) a lot to offer for Australian editor Matt de Neef.

“I’ve got along best with the SH+ Shabli Evo. It’s light, comfortable, well-vented, and I just like the way it looks versus any other helmet I’ve used.”

Unfortunately for Matt, that helmet recently got misplaced under the wheels of a Subaru Forester and so he’s currently without his beloved.

What helmet do you use? Have you found any trends in what fits and what doesn’t? Let us know in the comments below.

The post CT Recommends: Our favourite road cycling helmets appeared first on CyclingTips.

The number of options for carry-along cycle tools is staggering, and any shop will have an overwhelming number from which to choose. Folding multi-tools have historically been the most common, but bit-based multi-tools have grown more popular in recent years, and for good reason. They offer more tools in a package that’s often smaller or lighter, and they also usually provide more leverage, too.

But which one is the best? According to CyclingTips resident tool nerd Dave Rome, some of the new bit-based tools are genuinely fantastic, like those from Fix-It Sticks, PB Swiss Bike Tool, Spurcycle Tool, or the Mineral Designs Mini Bar. Some are just so-so, and others you should maybe just leave on the store shelf.

Why a bit-based multi-tool?

Compared to more common folding multi-tools, bit-based tools can be configured to match exactly what your bike requires, and they are generally lighter for the given number of tools. In most cases, they also feel more like a shop-grade tool, offering better comfort in your hands, more leverage, and a more natural weight balance.

The bits themselves are often borrowed from industrial applications, and so they are often made of higher quality steels and to tighter tolerances than usual. This makes these tools quite suitable for regular home use, too, and replacement bits are easy to find when needed.

A size comparison of all tools tested.

Several bit-based tools also incorporate a convenient ratchet mechanism for extra-rapid operation in the field.

By comparison, common Swiss Army-style folding tools often offer only modest leverage, and their bulkier designs can have clearance issues with tight-access bolts (such as saddle clamps, suspension pivots, and integrated seatpost binders). The fixed tool configurations probably include functions you don’t need, either, or omit ones that you do.

View this post on Instagram

What tool do I carry when riding? This. I’ve become a fan of bit-style tools over the years, and PB Swiss offer a simple, functional, smooth-edged and high quality tool. PB Swiss rebrand the same tool for pocket-tool and knife specialists Victorinox. * * It simply consists of a 5mm hex key, that works with the magnetic bit adaptor (another item I love) to drive the other included steel bits. The hex key snaps into the plastic body, securing the bits in place. Plastic tyre levers sit on both sides of the tool, they work, but they’re the crappiest part. All up, it only has a bit (intended) of weight at 89 grams. * * After nearly two years of use, a little cosmetic corrosion is present on the bits. Otherwise it has been flawless, and bolt access issues have never presented. * * What is your favourite bike multi-tool? What other bit-style tools have you used and can recommend? *. *. #cooltooltuesday #cooltool #biketools #swissmade #pbswisstools #multitool #pockettool #pockettools #hexkey

A post shared by Dave Rome (@romeandstuff) on Apr 10, 2018 at 2:18am PDT

However, bit-based tools aren’t the holy grail of multi-tools and there are compromises.

By design, bit-based tools have lots of small pieces that can be lost in the brush. And although the multiple bits allows you to choose which ones to carry, it’s usually a slower process than just unfolding a Swiss Army-type tool, and you also need to make sure you’ve got the right bits to begin with.

There’s also the clearance issue. Bit-based tools usually reach into tight spaces more easily, but deeply recessed bolts – such as found on many seatpost heads and brake lever bodies – may require a longer bit than what you have.

How the tools were tested

You’ll see a common trend amongst the winners and also-rans in this review, with priorities placed on size, weight, versatility, and ease of use. In my mind, those are the key attributes for bit-based tools. Individual wants and needs will vary, though, so keep that in mind.

Some tools tested here have additional features that some might find useful, such as a chain breaker or tyre levers, or even a built-in torque wrench. Take all of the integrated tyre levers with a grain of salt, though. The Topeak, PB Swiss, and Birzman tools all include them, but none work well for super tight tyres. Separate tyre levers are light and cheap, however, so such inclusions haven’t impacted the results.

All 4 and 5mm bits were measured with a micrometer, and surprisingly, all tools on test were within workable tolerances. There were a handful of slightly oversized and undersized bits (in all cases, these scored lower), but at the same time, all were close enough to function without short-term issue.

Tools that feature a built-in torque function were tested for accuracy and repeatability. Both the Silca Ti-Torque and Topeak Ratchet Rocket Lite NTX fared well here, while the PrestaCycle TorqRatchet and Birzman Torque Ranger were capable of being accurate, but more prone to user error.

Scores were used to help rank the tools. Scores out of ten were awarded for easy of carrying, ease of use, and perceived build quality, providing a maximum of 30 points.

Ease of carrying was judged on how well the tools and included bits are stored, weight, overall size, and general shape. Ease-of-use is based on whether the tool is fast and fumble-free to use, how well it works across typical adjustments, available leverage, and how comfortable it is in the hand. And the perceived build quality looked at tolerances, durability, and general construction quality.

Price was factored in, too (based on US retail). That aspect is unfairly swayed by too many factors (such as international variances, mail order vs. retail pricing, etc.), so there is just one bonus point allotted for a low-cost tool and nothing for an expensive one. That may not sound like much, but this was a closely fought battle.

Editor’s picks

Simply put, you can’t go wrong with the Fix-It Sticks, PB Swiss Bike Tool, Spurcycle Tool, or the Mineral Designs Mini Bar. All offer the benefits of bit-based tools and do so in a compact size.

While the leaders were based on ease of carrying and simple use, it doesn’t mean they’ll match your needs perfectly. Many of the bit-tools that scored lower may prove to be the perfect accessory for occasional home repair, or as something to leave in the car or to take on riding holidays.

Likewise, if you value having a torque wrench, then both the Topeak Ratchet Rocket Lite NTX and Silca T-Ratchet + Ti-Torque should be high on your list. In fact, the torque limiting bits included with the Topeak Ratchet Rocket Lite NTX would make a great addition to any of the tools tested, and Topeak does sell them separately.

If you must have a chain breaker included, then check out either the Topeak Ratchet Rocket or put together your own modular kit from Fix-It Sticks or PrestaCycle. Otherwise, the Park Tool CM-5 is the best pocket-sized chain breaker to bring with you.

Best in test: Mineral Designs Mini Bar

I didn’t expect this tool to finish first, but it did. The tool is centered around a welded and drilled-out L-shaped steel driver handle with three bit sockets. The driver is solid enough that I’d have no qualms standing on it to break free a pedal or a frozen thru-axle – something I can’t say about any folding multi-tool – and the three sockets afford plenty of flexibility in terms of leverage and tool access.

Strong magnets hold the driver against the plastic bit holder when not in use. There are also magnets securing each of the six bits, and Mineral Designs include an extra four bits so you can customise the tool to your liking.

This isn’t the smallest or lightest tested, but it does nearly everything the PB Swiss does and with one less piece to fuss over. And given it’s nearly half the cost of the Spurcycle, it gets the edge.

Pros: Super strong, simple to use, bits contained with magnets, good size, price
Cons: Slightly heavy
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T25, #2 Phillips and flat screwdrivers (can only carry six bits)
Weight: 114g

Runner-up: Spurcycle Tool

Spurcycle is best known for its impressive bells, but recently the company added the simply named “Tool”. Instead of using a fixed steel handle like the Mineral Designs Mini Bar, the Spurcycle Tool uses a sliding handle made of Grade 5 titanium, made by Paragon Machine Works. As a result, the Tool is the smallest and second lightest on test. The included fabric carrying case – made by X-Pac in San Francisco – holds the handle and ten bits, and still leaves room for coffee money and a key.

None of that sounds cheap, and it isn’t. Even so, money doesn’t buy perfection. The bit holder is a little too floppy, and its design doesn’t quite meet the level otherwise presented. Still, this, or the PB Swiss, remain the top pick if you want to feel a little fancy when your saddle slips.

Pros: High-quality build, simple to use, sliding handle design, small size, low weight
Cons: High price, flimsy bit holder
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T10 and T25 Torx, #2 Phillips
Weight: 89g

PB Swiss Bike Tool

This is the tool that inspired the test. PB Swiss is a popular premium tool brand amongst professionals, perhaps best known in cycling circles for its rainbow coloured hex keys. As the company’s sole cycling-specific product, the Swiss-Made Bike Tool (also made for Swiss Army knife specialist Victorinox) centers around a 5mm hex key. From there, an included bit adapter allows you to attach other tools as needed to either end.

The bits are top notch in terms of fit and durability, as is the 5mm hex key. The plastic holder has proven durable, too, and I’m a huge fan of its smooth and compact profile.

However, the bits do have some minor cosmetic corrosion after a few years of use, and the included tyre levers are best used only in emergencies, especially given they produce a smooth edge to the holder.

Prior experience suggested to me that this tool stood a good chance of taking the top prize here. But it’s clear that competitors have taken notice of the formula and improved upon it, as both the Mineral Designs and Spurcycle options are easier and quicker to use – but not by much.

Pros: Swiss-made quality, proven to withstand professional use, low weight
Cons: Adapter adds an extra step, weak tyre levers, bits prone to cosmetic corrosion with age
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6mm hex, T25 Torx, #2 Phillips and flat screwdrivers, tyre levers
Weight: 92g

Fix-It Sticks Replaceable Edition

Fix-It Sticks is the pioneering brand in bit-based cycling tools. The ecosystem of compatible tools has grown significantly since the original launch in 2014, with optional accessories that now include tyre levers, a chain breaker (which is also sold by PrestaCycle), and a sleek bottle cage mount. Tested here is the company’s Replaceable edition, which uses two “sticks”, each with removable bits on the end, that can join together to make a sturdy T-handle. They’re housed in a nice sleeve, with space for plenty of extra bits if required.

I also tested the newer Blend version, which replaces one of the stainless steel replaceable sticks with a lighter original aluminium stick with fixed 4 and 5mm hex bits bonded into the ends. This drops the weight to 128g, while still providing plenty of customisation with the second stick. I prefer this version.

Pros: Comfortable to use, the Blend version is light, small size, high function, convenient mount and add-on accessory options, reasonable price
Cons:T-design won’t fit in some places
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6mm hex, T25 Torx, #2 Phillips #2 (can also carry an additional two bits)
Weight: 156g (128g for Blend version)

Chapman Mfg Cyclist’s Screwdriver Kit 2309

Chapman Mfg isn’t well-known in the cycling world, but the company has been making bit-based tools in Connecticut, almost without change, since 1936. Included in this sole cycling kit is a quality bit-ratchet, the company’s own selection of USA-made bits, a screwdriver handle, and a thumb spinner. Despite the in-house construction, it’s the cheapest tool in the test.

There’s a true sense of nostalgia here and despite being small enough to ride with, I’d happily keep this tool in the workshop. The extended knurled spinners on the ends of the bits are a nice touch, and the ratchet feels like it’ll last forever.

However, there are some aspects I’d like to see changed to make this kit better for riding. The included screwdriver handle and the plastic thumb spinner just aren’t needed; leaving them at home drops the kit weight down to 121g, too. Instead, Chapman Mfg should add a bit extension for greater versatility with the ratchet handle. The plastic carrying sleeve is slim, but it could also be shorter in length.

Chapman Mfg has room for improvement with this kit, but once they fix the minor quibbles, they should increase the price and start getting the deserved attention.

Pros: Old-school quality, low-profile ratchet, simple to use, low price
Cons: Includes unnecessary tools, case could be shorter and better for letting tools dry if wet
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T25 Torx, #1 and #2 Phillips
Weight: 183g

Topeak Ratchet Rocket

With a clumsy case and various bike mounts provided, it’s easy to excuse this tool as being something built for more recreational cyclists. But if you ditch the external case and the included tyre levers, you’re left with a good ratchet, seven bits, and a surprisingly functional chain breaker.

The bits do rattle a little in their storage sockets, and given my recent success with Topeak chain breakers, you should keep it for emergency use only. Otherwise, this is a tool that deserves consideration if you want a bit ratchet that also includes a functional chain breaker that you can use in a pinch.

Pros: Ratchet design, good leverage on chain breaker, easy to use
Cons: Brittle plastic on bit cover, wasted additions
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6mm hex, T25 Torx, #2 Phillips, tyre levers
Weight: 205g (127g without case)

Fabric Chamber Tool

This compact aluminium cylinder is cleverly designed with a ratcheting head and tidy internal storage. For movie buffs, there’s also the bonus feature of being reminiscent of how the dinosaur DNA was stolen in the original Jurassic Park.

This tool is one of the only ones tested to use non-standard, extended double-ended bits. Thankfully, they are of respectable quality and they do afford the tool clearance into (most) tight spots.

But the Chamber is a little heavy, and a mostly metal design makes it prone to rattling (which can be fixed with an o-ring, or by shoving a small piece of paper into the end). Additionally, the paranoid mountain biker in me says it’s not something you’d ever want to land on, so it’s best transported somewhere other than a pocket or hydration pack.

Pros: Unique design, ratchet design, lots of tools
Cons: Heavy, prone to rattling, long bits can occasionally present clearance issues
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T10 and T25 Torx, #2 Phillips and flat screwdrivers
Weight: 170g

Topeak Ratchet Rocket Lite NTX

This kit is pretty similar in purpose to the Silca below, but does so with a marginally cheaper price and a slimmer case. It’s quicker to use than the Silca, and the Nano TorqBits torque-limiting 4, 5 and 6Nm extension bits read impressively close to quoted figures – better than some dedicated workshop tools, in fact.

While it wouldn’t be absurd to carry this on a ride, especially one where you know you’ll be making fine fit adjustments, this tool is most impressive when used for travel, left in a car, or as a compact home set.

If you do decide to take it on a ride, then I’d suggest only taking the torque bits that your bike requires (probably just the 5Nm) and ditching the useless tyre levers. Doing so will see the kit drop to 167g.

Pros: Accurate torque function, good range of tools, fast to use, impressive size given the contents
Cons: Large for a carry-along tool, weak tyre levers
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T10/T15/T25 Torx, #2 Phillips screwdriver, bit extension, 4/5/6Nm torque bits, tyre levers
Weight: 222g

Crankbrothers B14

Looking and functioning the most like a traditional folding multi-tool, the B-Series from Crankbrothers combines some of the best attributes of both portable tool types – but it also includes downsides of both, too. It’s simple to use, for example, but it’s also quite heavy. And although the dual-sided bit driver is a potentially nice feature, the sockets are too shallow to provide adequate bit support.

It does do some things well. The included bits are longer than usual for better access to recessed bolts, and it’s also remarkably quick to use since there isn’t a separate case to fiddle with.

Pros: Loads of tool sizes, fast to use, long bits
Cons: Heavy, sloppy bit holder
Included tools: 1.5/2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T10/25 Torx, #1/#2 Phillips and flat screwdrivers
Weight: 207g

Lezyne Storage Drive

This is a far more compact version of the Lezyne T-Drive (below), and the bits are stored directly within the large aluminium handle. That compactness comes at the expense of ease-of-use, though. To access the bits, you must first unthread one end of the handle, slide out the appropriate bit, and then slide the handle through the separate bit holder. All in all, there are too many small parts, and it’s easy to drop a bit when putting it together. Annoyingly, the innermost bit is sometimes stubborn to remove from the handle.

It works nicely once assembled and is the lightest and most minimalist tool tested, which I like. The included strap lets you attach the tool to a seatpost or your frame, but I don’t fully trust it for holding the two separate pieces, so it’s best to carry it in a saddle wrap or something similarly secure.

Pros: Extremely light, comfortable leverage
Cons: Fiddly to use, high chance of dropping a bit, two separate pieces
Included tools: 4/5/6mm hex, T25/T30 Torx,
Weight: 77g (including holder)

Birzman M-Torque Ranger

If you want to carry a 5Nm torque wrench on a ride and little else, this plastic-bodied tool is worth a close look. It features a sprung toggle button that clicks when you reach 5Nm of force. Despite the simplicity, it’s surprisingly accurate, recording an average peak of 5.15Nm. However, that accuracy is dependent on how evenly you’re applying the force, and certainly, a little grit in the tool will cause havoc on such repeatability.

Beyond this feature, it’s expectedly light given there’s only space for five bits. It’s a bit of a fiddle to use, with the bits only accessed once you remove those super wide tyre levers. I also found the bit holder got a little floppy with age.

If carrying a 5Nm torque wrench on a ride doesn’t do anything for you, it’s a hard pass on this one.

Pros: 5Nm torque indication in a minimalist package
Cons: Clumsy use, limited number of tools
Included tools: 3/4/5mm hex, T25 Torx, flat Screwdriver, tyre levers
Weight: 113g

PrestaCycle T-Handle ratchet

PrestaCycle was one of the first companies to promote small bit-based ratcheting tools for use in the workshop, and I was an early convert. The ratchets and bits remain competitively light and small to carry, but PrestaCycle is yet to offer them in a ride-friendly case. I’ve resorted to using an O-ring to keep the tool and bits together, but be warned about poking holes in your spare tube!

I like this tool. I’ve had the identical tool in my travel toolkit for over a year, albeit I paid twice as much and it was sold under the Facom brand name. New for PrestaCycle, this ratchet affords more leverage than most and features a clever pass-through extension which turns the tool into a T-handle.

As a workshop or compact travel tool, I really rate it. However, PrestaCycle should include a compact case or sleeve to keep everything together. A storage case is available separately, but it’s impractical for riding use.

Pros: Quality and versatile ratchet, bit choice is open to customisation
Cons: No carrying case included
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T6/T8/T10/T15/T20/T25/T30 Torx, #0/#1/#2 Phillips and #1/#2 flat screwdrivers, ¼in square socket adaptor
Weight: 88g (add 108g for 20 bits)

Silca T-Ratchet + Ti-Torque

This is one of the more modular tools available and can be used as a normal ratchet, a T-handle, or even a screwdriver. The tool, bits, and case are all high-quality and are nice to use. The torque feature on the latest version has proven to be fairly accurate. Silca claims this tool is the most compact 2-8Nm torque multi-tool available.

The Silca T-Ratchet + Ti-Torque is something I’ve reviewed in-depth before, and while both James Huang and I use one when traveling, it remains something that I deem too large for carrying on a ride. The magnets used to hold everything together sometimes aren’t as strong as I’d prefer, either.

I’ve found a kit like this (and the Topeak Ratchet Rocket Lite NTX) is best used for repairs at the car or in a minimalist home workshop. Still, it’s competitive in size to a few other popular bit-based tools and certainly deserves a mention.

Pros: Quality build and design, accurate torque feature
Cons: Cumbersome for riding use, modular pieces can come unattached
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6mm hex, T10/T20/T25 Torx, #2 Phillips screwdriver, bit extension, 2-8Nm torque extension
Weight: 233g

PrestaCycle TorqRatchet

The new TorqRatchet adds a spring-indicator torque wrench to what is otherwise a proven bit-based ratchet tool. Once your bolt is nipped up, you press your thumb on the torque handle until the desired number is reached. However, those torque gradients are incredibly fine (pack your reading glasses), and I found it nearly impossible to read the torque figure I was aiming for. I’d prefer to see every odd number left out for better legibility.

It’s a similar tool to what Feedback Sports launched at Eurobike, and while this one is super compact without a case, the Feedback version is easier to read. A storage case is available, but as with the PrestaCycle’s T-Handle ratchet, it makes for a bulky package that isn’t well-suited to cycling.

Pros: Low weight
Cons: Torque indicator is extremely hard to read
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T6/T8/T10/T15/T20/T25/T30 Torx, #0/#1/#2 Phillips and #1/#2 flat screwdrivers, ¼in square socket adaptor
Weight: 67g (add 108g for 20 bits)

Lezyne T-Drive

Featuring an aluminium sliding handle design, this new Lezyne tool is reasonably light, fair in size, and comfortable to use. But for unknown reasons, Lezyne requires you to assemble the tool before it’s ready for use, instead of just modifying the shape a little so that it fits in the case as is (or vice versa). It’s possible to remove the foam insert and fit the assembled tool and bits in the case, but then it rattles, is fiddly to find the right size bit, and you’re likely to drop something.

This tool is perhaps best left at home or in the car.

Pros: Comfortable to use, nice looking
Cons: Slow and fiddly to use
Included tools: 2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T10/T25/T30 Torx, #2 Phillips and flat screwdrivers
Weight: 134g

Crankbrothers Y12

Arguably the most unique tool on test, the Crankbrothers Y series are modular multi-tools built around the ubiquitous Y-wrench. In this 12-piece tool, you get two magnetic Y-wrenches providing five of the most common tool sizes, with the sixth being a bit holder. The bits are then stored amongst the three clip-out canisters on the perimeter, with glueless patches included in one. More expensive versions replace some canisters with a chain breaker and even a CO2 inflator head.

It’s a clever tool that works well enough, but I found it a pain to find the desired bit on the rare occasion the Y-wrench wasn’t suitable. And those Y-wrenches can present the occasional clearance issue with certain seatpost designs. Those are all aspects I can live with, but the general shape is just awful for carrying in a jersey pocket, a saddle bag, or similarly tight confines.

Pros: Y-wrenches are good for many repairs
Cons: Awkward shape for carrying, too many pieces
Included tools:2/2.5/3/4/5/6/8mm hex, T10/T25 Torx, #1 Phillips and flat screwdrivers, glueless patch kit
Weight: 165g

So are you bit-tool user, considering it, or do you prefer to stay with something else? Or do you go completely sans multi-tool on your rides? Let us know in the comments below.

The post The best bit-based cycling multi-tool shootout: 16 tested appeared first on CyclingTips.

The way we all ride bikes has been changing dramatically in recent years, with the all-road, gravel, and adventure categories all seeing major growth. If anything, we expect to see the variety of riding styles continue to expand, not contract.

Despite the concurrent evolution of bikes to match, though, drivetrains continue to lag behind in terms of available gear ratios. SRAM has been a frontrunner in terms of single-chainring options, but Shimano and Campagnolo still primarily stick to the tried and true, and even SRAM’s double-chainring options are quite limited.

Want something other than 53/39T, 52/36T, or 50/34T for a high-end road double crankset? Good luck with that, at least from the big three, but Praxis has quickly filled the void with its latest Zayante Carbon crankset.

Hiding in plain sight

Long an OEM contract manufacturer behind the scenes for a wide range of forged aluminum fittings (under the Dragon Tech and/or Liow Ko brands), Praxis has steadily been making further inroads as a standalone brand. It first started with an expansive range of forged chainrings, and has followed that with drivetrain components like conversion bottom brackets, cranksets, and mountain bike cassettes.

The question has never been whether Praxis could make a quality product — it already has been for ages under other brand names — but whether the company could successfully go about it on its own.

Earlier forged aluminum cranksets like the Zayante and Girder have demonstrated that Praxis could hold its own in the midrange arena, and in fact, Specialized already includes a lot of the company’s alloy offerings as original equipment across much of its range. But the new Zayante Carbon takes Praxis further into the high-performance realm, following on the heels of the Lyft composite mountain bike crank that the company launched last year.

The chunky aesthetic definitely won’t suit everyone, but the profile is admirably narrow and the Q-factor is inline with other high-end options at just 147mm.

Praxis builds the Zayante Carbon using an increasingly familiar format, with molded carbon fiber arms that are joined in the center with a 30mm-diameter forged-and-machined aluminum spindle. That layout generally produces better overall stiffness than 24mm-diameter crank spindles, while still being compatible with virtually every bottom bracket shell on the market thanks to a wide array of available cups. Currently, the only fitment not supported is Trek’s BB90 system.

Weight is very competitive at 635g for the arms and 52/36T — less than 10g heavier than the equivalent Shimano Dura-Ace R9100 crankset — but the retail pricing is a comparative bargain at just US$325 / AU$475 / £300. Bottom bracket pricing varies with fitment, but for reference, a set of Praxis M30 BSA cups goes for a relatively modest US$45 / AU$73 / £35.

It’s all about the gearing

As is also fast becoming the norm, Praxis doesn’t bother integrating the chainring spider directly into the driveside arm, instead adopting the three-bolt splined interface used by SRAM to create a more modular setup. That format is well-proven at this point to run refreshingly creak-free, and it also provides users with a wealth of gearing options, either from Praxis or any number of other companies that use the same spline.

The Praxis ‘X-Spider’ uses a proprietary 160/104mm four-arm bolt pattern to attach the chainrings. Both rings bolt directly to the forged aluminum structure, though, which not only makes for a firm and solid connection, but also cuts the number of bolts in half as compared to traditional male-and-female hardware setups.

Want to run a direct-mount 1x setup? Done. Prefer a 2x setup instead? Sure thing. There are even several spider-based power meter options that are compatible, too. But for double setups, Praxis unfortunately follows another industry trend of using its own proprietary mounting pattern, in this case a symmetrical four-armed forged aluminum spider with dedicated 160mm and 104mm bolt circles for each chainring.

Many riders will undoubtedly be put off by the non-standard fitment, but the reality is that there are few things standard about modern chainring mounting patterns these days. SRAM still uses standard 110mm and 130mm five-arm BCDs, but Shimano and Campagnolo both use their own custom arrangements, as does FSA, so it’s not like Praxis is the outlier here.

One major benefit of that “X-Spider” pattern is that it offers an impressively broad range of double chainring sizes, including not only the usual 53/39T and 50/34T options, but also the 52/36T semi-compact and the newer 48/32T sub-compact sizes, all without any additional changes.

The new sub-compact and the future of wide-range gearing

Regardless of the gearing selection, that burly aluminum spider provides ample reinforcement to help keep the chainrings from flexing under load — the same reason why Campagnolo switched to a similar configuration several years ago.

But it’s the sub-compact option in particular that drew my attention here. Today’s increased selection of wider-range cassettes is all well and good, but when paired with conventionally sized double chainrings and larger-volume tires (and the larger roll-out that results), what you actually end up with is more duplicated gear ratios and even less use of the top end of the range. If you instead decrease the size of the chainrings to offset the diameter of those wider tires, you retain the same total spread as before, but shift the gearing window back to where it once was.

In the workshop and on the road

Installing the Zayante Carbon crankset is a very straightforward affair, particularly given that my personal Seven Evergreen Pro that I used for testing features standard threaded cups. One minor annoyance is that Praxis uses its own spline pattern for its bottom brackets, but the tool is at least included so there’s no additional expense incurred.

Praxis uses the common SRAM three-bolt spline pattern to attach the aluminum spider to the carbon fiber arm. It’s a proven design that runs silently and is compatible with a wide range of aftermarket chainring options.

Once those are installed, you simply slide the spindle through the bearings, and then install and tighten the non-driveside arm to spec. The inner race of the non-driveside cartridge bearing is firmly sandwiched between a machined shoulder on the spindle and the crankarm to keep things from sliding axially under load, while a stainless steel wave washer is on hand to take up any leftover space between the driveside bearing and crankarm.

Such an arrangement minimizes any undue preload on the bearings (much like SRAM’s original GXP design), and the assembly spins impressively freely when all is said and done.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the 48T outer chainring is likely smaller than what was originally intended for your frame, so it’s critical to check that your front derailleur can be positioned that far down on the seat tube. Bikes with clamp-on mounts will likely be fine, but traditional frames with braze-on tabs will be hit or miss.

Praxis is one of only a handful of companies that cold forges its chainrings. The process requires a much bigger initial investment than just machining, but also improves long-term durability and allows for more complex shaping.

Out on the road, it’s difficult — if not impossible — to discern any differences in overall stiffness between the Zayante Carbon and any number of other high-end carbon road cranksets I’ve used recently. But that said, independent testing by Arizona bike shop Fairwheel Bikes showed the aluminum Zayante to be one of the stiffest models on the market, and I have little reason to suspect that the carbon version would be appreciably softer. Indeed, it certainly feels stout underfoot, although that admittedly doesn’t mean much.

What was far more meaningful to me, though, was that brilliant 48/32T chainring combination.

Such chainrings would have been viewed as unusually small just a few years ago, but when you crunch the numbers, the 50/34T chainrings and 11-28T cassette I favor on conventional road bikes with 25mm-wide tires is replicated nearly perfectly by the Zayante Carbon’s sub-compact 48/32T chainrings when paired to the 32mm-wide slicks I now use more regularly.

Praxis’s M30 spindle design is similar to SRAM’s original GXP system in that the non-driveside bearing is sandwiched between a machined shoulder on the spindle and the crankarm. As a result, there’s virtually no unwanted preload on the bearings.

Shift performance is also very good, particularly under load, although I still wouldn’t say it’s quite up to the same level as a complete Shimano or Campagnolo setup. It’s also important to note that, true to Praxis’s word, it’s best to use a Shimano, Campagnolo, or KMC chain if possible, as a stock SRAM chain tends to run a little clumsily.

The chainrings have been faring quite well since I started testing five months ago, too, no doubt helped by the fact that Praxis forges its outer chainrings for improved durability (inner ones are still CNC-machined). Bearing durability has been harder to gauge given the dry Colorado climate, but while online reviews have generally been pretty favorable, the fact that Praxis only covers the Enduro 6805 bearing cartridges with non-contact aluminum shields makes me question how well they’d hold up under persistently wet conditions.

The generous layer of marine grease applied at the factory in between the cartridges and outer shields should help in that respect, but proper rubber contact seals would still be better.

That one caveat aside, the Zayante Carbon is a winner in my book, and well worth considering if you’re looking to downsize your gearing. They’re lightweight and stiff, reasonably priced, shift smoothly and consistently, and are chock-full of options for both gearing and frame fitment. From a performance and value standpoint, that’s a tough combination to beat.

Follow the link to learn more about the Zayante Carbon crankset at the Praxis website.

The Zayante Carbon is only the second carbon crankset to come from Praxis, and although the company’s expertise mostly lies in forged aluminum, it seems to have learned the composite ropes very quickly.

The non-driveside crankarm is equipped with self-extracting hardware. The aluminum bolt is pre-treated with anti-seize compound to keep it from getting stuck inside the aluminum spindle.

Praxis’s M30 spindle design is compatible with nearly every bottom bracket shell on the market (with Trek’s BB90 being one notable exception).

Praxis sources its bearing cartridges from Enduro Bearings. The use of non-contact aluminum shields helps minimize friction, but also makes the cartridges more prone to water contamination than some might prefer.

All of Praxis’s threaded bottom brackets require a proprietary tool for installation, which is thankfully included so there is no additional cost involved.

The post Praxis Zayante Carbon crankset review: Options galore appeared first on CyclingTips.

Every road derailleur on the market today is based on either a network of braided steel cables and housings, or some combination of electric batteries and motors. Both concepts are very well-understood at this point, highly refined, relatively easy to maintain, and readily accessible in terms of both cost and availability.

The Rotor Uno groupset, however, is not like those other designs.

Instead, it uses a fully hydraulic system for both the derailleurs and brakes. There are no cables or housings to replace, and no batteries to charge. It’s competitively lightweight, impressively adjustable, and undeniably exclusive.

But has Rotor created something that can actually motivate people to choose Uno over what’s already out there, or does its appeal mostly lie in its novelty? According to CyclingTips global technical editor James Huang, it’s good to be different. But it’s better to just be better.

It’s all business inside the two-piece plastic clamshell that forms each Rotor Uno lever body.

Why hydraulic

Modern cable-actuated drivetrains are incredibly evolved, and despite their relative youth, battery-powered electronic ones have already surpassed even the best mechanical transmissions when it comes to pure performance. While it’s easy to harp on minutiae, the fact of the matter is that all of the groupset offerings these days — from budget to flagship, and from Shimano, SRAM, and Campagnolo — arguably border on functional perfection.

So why bother with developing a fully hydraulic system, particularly given the engineering challenges presented to a company of Rotor’s comparatively minuscule size?

Hydraulic pressure is used to move the derailleur inward, while the coil spring pulls it back out when that pressure is released. The ratcheting mechanism is partially exposed, which means the Rotor Uno groupset is most certainly not cyclocross-friendly.

According to Rotor, the Uno’s hydraulic design is fully sealed from end-to-end, meaning there’s essentially zero chance of contamination and almost no maintenance involved. Since the derailleurs are still human-powered, you never have to worry about heading out with a dead or nearly-dead battery, it’s fairly easy to diagnose a mechanical issue (at least compared to an electronic drivetrain), and although you might think an oil-based system would require a lot of extra hardware, Uno is pretty light.

Claimed weight for a complete SRAM Red eTap rim-brake groupset is 2,043g, for example, including a BB/PF30 compact crankset and press-fit bottom bracket, 11-28T cassette, chain, and all requisite batteries, cables, and housings.

Claimed weight for a complete Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 R9150 rim-brake groupset is 2,022g for a similar configuration, plus a bit extra for the wiring harness and brake cables and housing.

But the Rotor Uno? Actual weight for the complete rim-brake setup I tested is 2,304g, all-in. That figure may seem a little disappointing at first, but keep in mind that Rotor’s Aldhu crankset isn’t a featherweight at 626g, nor is the matching aluminum bottom bracket at 105g. Swapping both of those could easily save over 100g, and given the chunkiness of the hydraulic rim-brake calipers, the gap also narrows considerably when you look at the disc-brake versions.

As with the rest of the groupset, the Rotor Uno front derailleur is made mostly of CNC-machined aluminum.

In fact, based on claimed weights, a disc-brake Uno groupset is quite a bit lighter than a comparable Dura-Ace Di2 package, and nearly identical to SRAM Red eTap.

Retail price for the complete Uno groupset (with Aldhu crankset, and in rim-brake or disc-brake configuration) is US$2,700 / £2,400 / €2,500. Australian pricing is TBC.

Planning on a DIY installation? Better set some time aside

Before I get into how Uno performs on the road, let’s first talk about what it’s like to install the groupset. Rotor has typically only provided complete test bikes to editors, but I was insistent on building this one up myself. In hindsight, I wish I had taken Rotor up on the offer.

Rotor sells the Uno groupset as a complete kit, with all of the hydraulic lines already connected and the system pre-bled. However, those lines still have to be cut to length, and given trends in modern bike construction, those lines also have to be internally routed through the frame, as I had to do on my Cervelo R3 loaner.

The Cervelo R3 is an outstanding chassis on its own, but in this case, it’s also one of very few on the market that will accept the Uno rear rim brake’s full-length hydraulic hose.

As a result, installing Uno requires you to cut, route, re-connect, and then re-bleed four separate hydraulic lines. Rotor has at least sized the diameter of the lines so as to work with Shimano Di2-compatible frame ports, but if you opt for the rim-brake variant — as I did here — you’ll also have to make sure the frame is equipped to handle full-length rear brake housing.

Adding further tedium to the process is the fact that each lever body has to be partially disassembled to access the hydraulic fittings.

Unlike Shimano and SRAM hydraulic levers, both of which conveniently place the connections on the outside of the body, Rotor hides everything away inside each Uno lever’s two-piece plastic clamshell (imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger peeling the flesh off of his forearm in Terminator 2).

Each body is held together with eight tiny screws.

The bleed process itself is quite straightforward, though, and Rotor clearly benefits from its development partnership with long-time hydraulic veteran Magura. The procedure will be familiar to anyone that has ever bled a hydraulic disc brake: Fill the syringes, connect them to the ports, open the ports in prescribed orders, push fluid through the system until all the air has been evacuated, and then close everything off. Uno uses the same mineral oil formula as Magura does on its disc brakes, too, meaning it won’t irritate your skin like DOT fluid, it won’t eat paint, and it should be relatively easy to source when needed.

Once the lines are installed and bled, the rest of the fine-tuning goes quickly, thanks in no small part to Rotor’s detailed tutorial videos. Chain gap for the rear derailleur is directly coded to cassette size so there’s no guesswork there, and etched guidelines on the front derailleur cage make it easy to get the position just right.

Similar to how Shimano allows some level of customization in terms of how its Di2 system shifts, Rotor has also built some tunability into Uno. Users can choose how many downshifts you can execute per lever push, for example, and neat inline adjusters allow you to fine-tune the lever effort as well.

The hydraulic shift lines are just slightly larger than Shimano Di2 wires, so they can use the same routing ports.

Straightforward the process may be, but it still amounts to a lot of steps. I can typically build up a bare frame with a mechanical groupset from start to finish in about an hour, but the Rotor Uno installation took me nearly an entire day. On the upside, though, it’s a one-and-done affair. I spent several months on my Uno loaner groupset and never had to do a thing, and Rotor only recommends flushing and re-bleeding the system annually.

Light on the scale, heavy on feel

Visually, Uno is unlike any other road groupset on the market. Whereas Shimano, SRAM, Campagnolo, and FSA all resort to more organic-looking aluminum forgings and molded carbon fiber parts, the vast majority of the Uno bits are CNC-machined (in Madrid), and so they have a distinctly industrial look to them, all sharp edges and hard lines.

The rear derailleur works reasonably well, but shifts still aren’t as smooth or quiet as the competition.

One might rightfully question why Rotor has gone this route given that machining is a far more expensive manufacturing process on a per-piece basis. But again, Rotor is a comparatively tiny company, and processes like forging and casting require a lot of initial investment that only makes sense when amortized over a large production volume. Rotor understands CNC-machining very well, though, and given Uno’s more small-batch production, the approach makes sense — and it also lends the groupset a very distinctive aesthetic that is truly unlike anything else out there.

However, the way it feels is very different, too, and that’s not necessarily a good thing.

Rotor follows SRAM’s lead in that each Uno lever is equipped with a single shift paddle. Just like DoubleTap, pushing the Uno shift lever a little bit yields a single upshift. If you push past that point to the next click, the system releases hydraulic pressure and a steel spring pulls the derailleur back in the other direction to give you a downshift. And again, just like SRAM, if you push further still, you can get multiple downshifts — up to four, depending on how you’ve set up the system.

See those little lines on that stainless steel screw? That’s how many downshifts you can get from a single lever swing. It’s quite neat that you can customize that, and even neater still that it’s a mechanic adjustment, not something you program on an app or computer.

Rotor’s use of hydraulics obviously sets it apart from SRAM’s mechanical groupsets already, but there’s another key difference: Whereas every cable-actuated transmission locates the indexing mechanism in the levers, Uno places them in the derailleurs.

In concept, it makes a lot of sense to locate the indexing function as close to where the movement is happening as possible. But in practice, it yields a vague action that is disappointingly lacking in both tactile and audible feedback. The shifts happen as they’re supposed to, but the process feels distant and abstract — the polar opposite of what SRAM’s DoubleTap provides, and with even less of a connected feeling than what you get with Shimano’s “Light Action” philosophy.

You get used to it eventually, but even then, you learn how far you have to move the shift paddles to get the number of gear changes you want based on muscle memory, not by feel or sound.

Surprise! The shift paddles are made of CNC-machined aluminum. As you’d expect, they feel reassuringly solid and stiff.

There’s also more effort required than usual to move each shift lever (even with the inline hydraulic adjusters backed all the way off), and the lever throws are uncomfortably long, even for my large-sized hands. And despite being a hydraulic system, the motions don’t feel as low-friction and fluid as you might expect.

I could more easily overlook all of this if the way Uno moved the chain around was truly world-class, but it falls short in that respect as well.

The machined steel-and-aluminum cassette is a piece of engineering art, and extremely lightweight to boot. But even with the recommended KMC chain, rear shifts are louder and rougher than I would expect from something of this caliber (and cost). The chain ends up where it’s supposed to, but it does so in a somewhat clunky manner that does’t match Uno’s premium price.

The Rotor Uno cassette is a really neat piece of kit. The first nine sprockets are machined from a single hunk of steel – not unlike what SRAM does with Red – and the last two are machined from aluminum. It’s stupendously light at just 133g in a 11-28T size.

Front shifts are particularly disappointing.

As with the rest of the Uno components, the front derailleur cage is made of machined aluminum. That isn’t an issue in and of itself, but the shaping isn’t particularly refined, and the derailleur body lacks the additional bracing against the seat tube that Shimano and SRAM have added to their units in recent years for extra rigidity.

Moving the chain to the outer chainring requires a firm push on the lever, and despite plenty of experimentation in terms of front derailleur positioning (keen-eyed readers will note that the derailleur is positioned fairly high in the photos), the chain still hesitates if you’re trying to make a shift under heavy load.

Making matters worse up front is the fact that there are four distinct trim positions, but no multi-click feature built into the front derailleur like there is for the rear one. As a result, dropping down to the inner chainring sometimes requires multiple lever pushes to get things silent. That in and of itself is a fairly minor nuisance, but it’s yet another sign that the shift performance just isn’t where it should be.

So-so ergonomics

Even the way the Uno levers feel in your hands leaves room for improvement.

The lever bodies are big and chunky, with a cross-section akin to a rounded-off and subtly tapering rectangle. The broad upper surface admittedly spreads out the load to minimize pressure points, but the shape still feels more industrial than organic.

The Rotor Uno levers look quite flashy with their carbon fiber blades and eye-catching graphics. But the body shape doesn’t feel very refined, and the hoods have an unnerving tendency to squirm around.

The lever bodies’ thin-walled, two-piece clamshell construction also seems less solid than the molded one-piece plastic bodies used by other brands, the rubber hoods look a bit unfinished, and they don’t fit nearly as snugly as I’d prefer, either. Especially when wet, they tend to squirm around a little on the bodies.

On the plus side, the lever reach is adjustable to make the controls easier to access, and the brake lever is long enough that you can easily find it with an extended fingertip when you’re careening down a mountain pass in the drops. I found the shift paddles to be too smooth and slippery, though, which only further highlights the long throws required. Some additional texture would be greatly appreciated here.

High hopes for the hydraulic rim-brake option, dashed

I’ll readily admit to being an ardent fan of hydraulic disc brakes, but even so, I’m not going to ignore recent advances in rim-brake technology that have narrowed the gap in stopping performance. To that end, I made the decision to go with the hydraulic rim-brake variant of Rotor’s groundbreaking Uno groupset to see just how good it might be. After all, a hydraulic rim-brake caliper potentially offers enough power to literally crush a rim, and SRAM has already demonstrated that the technology can be utilized to great effect with the hydraulic rim-brake version of its Red 22 groupset.

The problem with the Rotor Uno rim-brake calipers, however, is that the caliper design hasn’t been updated from what Magura designed for the 2012 Cervelo P5 triathlon bike, and it doesn’t seem like the hydraulic ratios are matched as well to the more modern Uno levers as they should be.

I had high hopes for the Rotor Uno hydraulic rim brakes, but alas, they were not to be. The idea still holds a lot of merit in my view, but the calipers desperately need a redesign if order to realize their potential.

On the road, the lever action is heavy, slow, and dull, and although the power is quite controllable, there’s nowhere near as much of it as there should be. The contact point isn’t very distinct, either, and the calipers themselves are clumsy-looking and heavy. The integrated quick-release function doubles as a pad wear adjuster, but even that is disappointing in that the adjustment increments are too coarse.

Given the calipers’ age, it should perhaps also come as no surprise that they’re not ideally suited to the wider rims that are more commonly used these days. I ended up having to swap to lower-profile pad holders to suit the Knight Composites TLA tubeless-compatible carbon clinchers I started with (which seem very good, by the way). And then even with the aggressive texture of the HED Jet 4 Black aluminum-carbon hybrid aero clinchers I switched to later for comparison, I found myself constantly wishing I was on a conventional cable-actuated dual-pivot calipers, desperately in search of more power.

Switching to a stronger return spring in the calipers would likely help with the snappiness, as would perhaps lower-friction seals. Likewise, new aluminum arms would instantly make the brakes more compatible with wider rims and tires. However, given the direction things are headed in the market, I don’t expect that any of those things will actually happen.

A hydraulic cylinder pushes a wedge upward when you pull the brake lever, which then pushes the tops of the brake arms outward.

To Rotor’s credit, the disc-brake version of the Rotor Uno groupset is much more in keeping with modern competition. While I’ve only dabbled a bit with that setup, it seems to perform much more like what you’d expect, with a light and positive feel, ample power and control, and a snappy lever return (not to mention a more competitive weight).

If you’re at all considering a Rotor Uno groupset, I strongly recommend you go that route; the rim-brake calipers just aren’t worthwhile.

The spinny bits

Rotor provided a complete groupset for this review, including its new Aldhu crankset and a complete 35mm-deep Knight Composites TLA tubeless carbon clincher wheelset laced to Rotor’s new Rvolver hubs.

Like the rest of the Uno groupset, the Aldhu crank eschews composite construction for CNC-machined aluminum. The rectangular-profile arms are big and notably stout — and drilled lengthwise to save weight — and joining the two is a wide-format, 30mm-diameter machined aluminum spindle that works with nearly every frame design on the market (with Trek’s BB90 being the one main exception). A separate spindle is offered for disc-brake bikes with 142mm-wide thru-axle rear hubs to maintain a proper chainline, too.

Rotor’s new Aldhu crankset is a neat piece of engineering. The modular spider isn’t a new idea, nor is the one-piece double chainring. But it’s how that’s all attached to the crankarm that’s truly clever.

The modular design features a separate spider so that riders can choose from a range of gearing options, including 1x and 2x, and both fully integrated versions and more conventional ones that use separate chainrings. Double-chainring options only cover traditional road sizes, although others could certainly be added later.

Rotor has always been one to push the envelope of ingenuity, and that tendency shows through in how the spider is attached to the arm.

Instead of just bolting the spider to the arm as is usually the case — or using a spline pattern and a separate lockring — Rotor uses the 30mm-diameter spindle itself to hold everything together. As the main bolt pulls the splined spindle into the socket on the arm, a shoulder on the spindle simultaneously sandwiches the spider in between the two. It’s an extremely elegant solution and it worked well during testing with no creaking or notable flex.

For this particular setup, Rotor also provided its new one-piece double-chainring setup, which is machined from a single hunk of aluminum. The four-arm spider is extremely rigid on its own, and the milled-in ribs on the back of the outer chainring only add to the stiffness. As usual, there’s also an array of machined-in ramps and stainless steel pins to help lift the chain on to the outer chainring.

Normally, cranksets with modular spiders have some means by which the spider is attached to the arm, and then that sub-assembly is secured to the axle. The Rotor Aldhu, however, skips that intermediate step and sandwiches the spider in between the crankarm and a shoulder on the spindle as those two parts are pulled together with the crank bolt. It’s an ingeniously elegant design, but also one that requires very stringent tolerances to work properly.

Unfortunately for Rotor, much of that is squandered by the Uno front derailleur design; when I used the Aldhu on a different bike with a more conventional transmission, it actually shifted quite well.

Overall, I was impressed with the Aldhu crankset, and it certainly presents a viable alternative to the big brands, especially if you want something a little different.

The hubs were a different story.

The Rvolver driver mechanism uses an array of cylindrical steel pawls that push outward against a steel ratchet ring. As the freehub body freewheels, the ratchet ring slides axially inside the hub shell.

Rotor uses a truly novel internal mechanism for the rear Rvolver hub, and while it functioned perfectly fine for me, it’s also obnoxiously loud when freewheeling and produces far too much drag — enough that a quick backpedal could almost derail the chain. The 14.4-degree engagement speed is reasonably quick, but the long travel of each spring-loaded, cylindrical pawl still makes for a somewhat vague take-up when you start reapplying power.

The concept still seems sound to me, but as these are currently, the hubs get a hard pass from me.

A mixed bag

I’ve now known Rotor founders Pablo Carrasco and Ignacio Estellés for over 10 years. I first met the pair at the Saunier-Duval team training camp in 2007, where the duo was pushing hard to get a high-profile team — maybe any team — to use their then-radical Q-Ring elliptical chainrings. I’ve always found them to be refreshingly genuine, appropriately ambitious, and admirably hard-working. Perhaps even more importantly, I’ve always felt that they truly believe in the merits of everything they’ve developed that proudly wears the Rotor logo, confident in what they’ve created but never with even the slightest hint of arrogance.

And so knowing how hard those two will take this, it pains me to say that this Uno groupset just feels like a miss.

The concept of a fully hydraulic groupset holds a lot of promise in my view, and for the exact reasons Rotor touts: there are no batteries to charge, there’s little-to-no maintenance required, and the hydraulic bits are totally sealed from weather. But despite years of delays, Uno is still sorely lacking in refinement, and it just doesn’t work as well as it needs to in order to be a viable alternative to the mainstream brands.

It seems like the ingredients are here, but there’s something off in the combination and preparation. Rotor announced a new 1×13 hydraulic drivetrain for both MTB and road/gravel use at this year’s Eurobike show, for example, and I’m cautiously optimistic that Rotor has been able to incorporate meaningful improvements.

Potential is only good if it’s realized, after all, and in this case, if feels like Rotor may have bitten off more than it could chew. I sincerely hope that Rotor can continue to refine Uno to the point where it’s as good as the company imagines it can be, and for the sake of Pablo and Ignacio — not to mention everyone else who works at Rotor — I hope the company can do so without choking along the way.

www.rotorbike.com

The machined construction practically makes the Rotor Uno rear derailleur an industrial work of art. It’s a truly striking piece that stands apart from everything else out there.

Chain gap is very straightforward to set, with each stepped position associated with a specific cassette size.

That switch puts the Uno into “crash mode”, releasing the ratcheting mechanism completely.

The molded carbon fiber pulley cage is one of the few pieces of the rear derailleur that isn’t made of aluminum.

Shift indexing is adjusted with this screw. It’s difficult to access with a multi-tool, though, which means on-the-road adjustments can sometimes be tricky.

Each pulley rotates on a sealed cartridge bearing.

The shift paddles are far too flat and lacking in texture to feel good in your fingers. They’re also quite slippery.

The bodies look better from this angle, but they still just don’t feel as highly evolved as what you can currently get from Shimano, SRAM, or Campagnolo.

The squirminess of the hoods feels just plain weird in the dry, but they’re downright dangerous if even the slightest bit of water gets underneath them.

What’s inside? Oil. And not a whole lot of it, either.

The machined aluminum cage looks good, but it just doesn’t seem to work that well at moving the chain up on to the outer chainring, especially under hard pedaling pressure.

A machined-in mark on the inner cage plate helps you position the height of the front derailleur per Rotor’s suggestions. I tried moving the derailleur higher up (as shown here) and lower down in an effort to get better shift performance, to no avail.

A small plastic cover keeps the ratcheting mechanism protected from the elements.

Inline adjusters allow you to fine-tune how much force is required to execute a shift. Nothing I could do here could change the fact that I constantly found myself wishing for a still-lighter feel, but with more tactile and audible feedback.

The rim-brake calipers are chunky aluminum units that distort the ultra-low weight of the rest of the groupset.

Pad spacing is adjusted with the rotating cylinder on the front of the caliper body.

I suspect the brakes would have a snappier feel if they were fitted with a beefier return spring.

Bike brands have moved away from full-length rear brake cable housing for good reasons, and so it’s tricky to find options that will accept the Rotor Uno’s hydraulic line.

If you look down inside the cassette, you’ll see a whole lot of… nothing. A network of small Torx-head bolts holds the two parts of the Rotor Uno cassette together.

The one-piece double chainring saves some weight over a more traditional setup, and the machined-in ribs help to stiffen the entire structure.

Another advantage of the splined spider arrangement is that it allows for fine-tuning of Rotor’s elliptical Q-Rings, should you prefer to go that route.

Rotor doesn’t bother making its own chain for Uno. Instead, it uses KMC’s X11SL, complete with red pins.

The Rotor Rvolver rear hub uses a novel ratchet mechanism with cylinder-shaped aluminum pawls. In practice, though, the hubs are outrageously loud and generate a lot of seal drag.

The front Rvolver hub is a straightforward unit. Nothing groundbreaking to see here, but nothing bad, either.

Spiral rifling around the pawl helps keep it lubricating and sliding freely. It’s a neat idea, but I’m not sure exactly what advantages it offers aside from just being different. And in its current form, it’s outrageously loud and has a lot of friction.

The post Rotor Uno long-term groupset review: Different strokes appeared first on CyclingTips.