Back in 2015, I sent a random email to Dave Weagle, the prolific suspension designer behind dw-link, Split Pivot, the recently announced Orion system, and the DELTA linkage on Evil Bicycles (a company Weagle co-founded). For whatever reason at the time, it struck me as unusual that someone so involved in mountain bike suspension had thus far limited himself to one end of the equation. And so I asked him if he’d ever considered doing a fork.

As it turns out, Weagle was already working on one. And today, five years after he started, he can finally let the cat out of the bag.

The question

“Why the hell is your rear suspension always better than your front suspension?”

That’s something Weagle had been asking himself for years, and it was one that long perplexed him.

“Every motorcycle, every motocross bike, every mountain bike, the rear [suspension] is better than the front,” he says. “The rider in me has always realized that, but the suspension dynamicist in me was always like, there’s no good reason. The rear has a chain, a bunch more load on it, more complex loading — it absolutely should be worse on a two-wheeled driven vehicle.”

The Trust Performance Message is unlike any other suspension fork currently on the market, both in how it looks and how it performs on the trail.

It’s a fair question, coming from the man behind many of the best rear suspension systems on the market. All of those designs incorporate a variety of carefully engineered linkages and leverage ratios so as to perfectly tune the performance of the design to the intended application. And almost without fail, all of the suspension pivots rotate on low-friction cartridge bearings that don’t bind up when you hit a bump.

Contrast that with conventional suspension forks.

Even the most expensive models are still built around the same basic telescoping configuration whereby a set of lower legs slides axially over a set of upper legs. And aside from Cannondale models (which slide on a network of steel needle bearings), all of those fork legs also slide on solid bushings that do their best to keep things moving freely.

Instead of the traditional telescoping layout employed by virtually every suspension fork available right now, Trust Performance has equipped the Message with a trailing linkage design that the company claims will provide radical improvements in handling stability, especially through corners.

But even as far as mountain bike forks have come, the best ones are still prone to binding when hitting bumps; the fork legs want to move almost straight up and down, but a big component of the incoming bump is trying to push the fork backward, subjecting those bushings to enormous loads and generating heaps of friction.

And whereas rear suspension designers have all sorts of leeway in tuning leverage ratios to provide the desired feel — basically how much the wheel moves for a given amount of shock shaft movement — forks are inherently limited to 1:1.

Linkage forks, on the other hand, use mechanical pivots that aren’t nearly as prone to binding when hitting bumps. The idea is nothing new; Girvin/Noleen forks date back several decades, as do ones from AMP Research, Look, and Whyte. Boutique brand German Answer still makes linkage forks today.

In addition to the kinematic benefits offered by the linkage design, designer Dave Weagle was also free to vary the shock leverage ratio as desired. On traditional telescoping forks, it’s 1:1 by default: a single millimeter of wheel movement always equates to a millimeter of shock shaft movement.

But according to Weagle, linkage fork designers have always been chasing the wrong objectives.

“Everyone was chasing braking performance almost exclusively,” Weagle says. “But here’s the secret: braking performance doesn’t matter. It’s literally the last thing on the list. Linkage designs are also inherently lighter than telescoping designs, but everyone was still chasing weight. They were throwing everything they knew about maintenance in the toilet, using crappy bushings to save 50g.”

Instead, Weagle concentrated on how front suspension affected a mountain bike’s handling stability, especially when approaching corners.

“On every telescopic fork, when you come into a corner, you want stability. But what happens is that you weight the front of the bike, the fork dives, you get less mechanical trail, and the bike gets less stable. We humans have learned, over 120 years of riding telescopic forks, to just deal with it. The brain is good at just making it work.

“But I wanted to know what happens if you make it more stable? Is it worse? Does it not make any difference at all? Or is it super better? So I designed a device to answer that question. It was this crazy-ass test mule, a big Terminator-looking thing that weighed 7 1/2 pounds (3.4kg). I built it up, bolted it up, and went for a ride in the middle of January 2014. I got two corners into it and was like, this is way better.”

The Message

The new Trust Performance Message is a far cry from that early block of crudeness. Today, it’s a radical carbon fiber suspension fork with an ingenious trailing linkage design, carbon fiber construction, and a claimed weight of 1,980g (4.37lb). Large-diameter cartridge bearings and aluminum axles are fitted to every pivot, and the whole thing comes across as outrageously overbuilt — in a good way.

In terms of how it works, the Message is sort of like Weagle’s dw-link rear suspension design adapted for use up front.

The Message’s main carbon fiber structure is massive in appearance, and massively rigid in practice.

Many rear suspension designs rely on the rear shock to improve pedaling performance, typically with heavy-handed damper valving that lessens rear-end bob under power, but also negatively impacts how well the rear end can move when you hit a bump. Like a few other multi-pivot designs, though, dw-link uses kinematics — basically the geometry defined by the pivot locations and linkage lengths — to filter out that unwanted motion, leaving the shock to move more freely so as to react more readily to the terrain.

The result is suspension that tracks the ground and improves rider comfort, but without sapping a lot of rider energy in the process.

On the Message fork, Weagle has tuned the kinematics so that the fork provides a nearly-constant amount of mechanical trail as the fork moves through its travel, thus maintaining a predictable handling characteristic that doesn’t require the rider to make any mental adjustments based on the terrain at hand. Almost as a side benefit, the fork also doesn’t dive much under braking, which not only further enhances the handling stability, but also leaves more useable travel available for when you actually hit something.

Because there are no solid bushings that can bind under load, the Message is also more sensitive to bump inputs and more consistent in how it reacts to different forces. And perhaps best of all, the recommended service interval is a whopping 250 hours, or roughly a year for most average riders — five times the recommendation from most of the mainstream competition.

Fore-aft flex? Not a concern here.

That carbon fiber construction doesn’t just save weight, either; both the main structure and the secondary links are as big and burly as they appear, and Trust claims that the Message offers a very substantial improvement in steering precision, too, even as compared to heavier-duty telescoping suspension forks like the Fox 36 and RockShox Lyrik.

The Message’s unique configuration offers some packaging advantages, too. Instead of that typical 1:1 leverage ratio, the Message’s more compact layout leaves room inside the carbon fiber legs for two symmetrical air springs instead of the usual one, which makes the fork more likely to keep the front wheel in-plane as it moves through its travel.

And since the damper shaft moves less relative to forks of similar travel, there’s also less seal stress generated.

Riding the Message

Several weeks prior to launch, Trust Performance flew me out to Park City, Utah, for a one-on-one test session. There, two Pivot Switchblade test bikes (which, conveniently, is also what I ride at home) were prepared, one with a Message fork, the other with a seemingly well-prepped RockShox Pike; the two bikes were otherwise completely identical in setup and component spec.

Over the course of several hours, we repeatedly rode the same section of trail, alternating bikes and tweaking settings throughout, so that I could get a feel for what the Message potentially had to offer.

On the trail, the Message’s surprisingly firm feel probably won’t be to everyone’s liking, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t doing what it claims to do. Photo: Garin Fons/True Communications.

Without a doubt, the Message performs like no other fork I’ve ridden, especially in two areas of performance: traction and steering precision.

The traction component was most evident when approaching tight switchbacked corners. Park City is chock-full of outstanding trails, but much of it consists of either a mixture of deep moon dust or marbles over hardpack, neither of which is particularly conducive to secure footing at high speed. Conveniently, though, the latter is also what I regularly contend with in Colorado.

In those sorts of conditions, you approach a corner, scrub as much speed as possible, and try to stay light on the brakes through the turn itself. Otherwise, there’s a very real chance you can lose traction in the middle of a turn, which either sends you off-line or down into the ground. It’s also commonplace that you’re constantly readjusting your braking pressure to accommodate changes in traction: hard on the brakes one second, letting up the next second when the wheel locks up a bit, then clamping down hard yet again.

Throughout it all, the head tube angle steepens up (especially on downhill corners), and you’re forced to adjust to the quicker steering that results. It’s a perpetual mental exercise.

The Trust Performance Message suspension fork seems to provide the most benefit through loose corners, where you can clearly brake harder and maintain better traction than would typically be possible on a traditional telescoping fork. Instead of the structure perpetually loading up and then releasing – leading to fore-aft flutter and flex – the Message simply plows through. Photo: Garin Fons/True Communications.

But on the Message, there’s none of that — or at least, a whole lot less of it. Not only could I brake much harder approaching the corner than usual without losing traction, but I could also maintain that brake pressure throughout the turn without sliding out or eating up a bunch of the available travel. Combined with the consistent handling geometry provided by the Message’s carefully engineering linkage geometry, it took barely one or two runs before I found myself tearing through corners far faster than I first thought safe.

The Message’s enhanced steering precision also forced a mental reset. I’ve spent years on enduro-focused forks from Fox, RockShox, and Manitou, but the chassis rigidity of all of those still pales in comparison to the Message’s massive carbon fiber structure. Directional changes are immediate, and there’s a general sense of solidity with the Message that’s somewhat lacking in those other forks.

Somewhat paradoxically, there’s minimal bob when sprinting or climbing out of the saddle, either. Trust equips the Message with a three-position switch atop the right leg that allows riders to choose between three levels of firmness on the fly, but I never felt the need to use it, instead leaving the damper in its most supple mode throughout.

It’s nice that this three-position adjuster is here, but I suspect it won’t get used much.

Overall, I simply found myself going faster than I expected, especially through corners and on loose terrain, and with far more confidence to boot.

Couldn’t that just have been me getting used to the trail, though? That’s certainly possible, but after switching to the conventional telescoping fork minutes later and blowing through those same corners a few times, it seemed clear to me that there really was something to what has been created here (Weagle and his company co-founders call it the “Trust Effect”).

Later in the day, we did a longer point-to-point trail where I simply stayed on the Message-equipped Switchblade throughout. Truth be told, I didn’t want to get off of it.

Still a tough sell

As groundbreaking as the Message clearly is, my guess is that Trust may still have a tough time getting people to buy into the idea. For one, it may offer some genuinely tangible performance benefits but it also comes with an outrageous price tag of US$2,700. That obviously leaves an awful lot of room to expand downmarket with a less-expensive version, but for now, it’s only deep-pocketed buyers who will even consider this.

Trust Performance boldly claims that the Mission can replace a wide range of fork sizes and types. Whether riders buy into that philosophy remains to be seen. Photo: Garin Fons/True Communications.

The suspension feel of the Message isn’t going to be to everyone’s liking, either. Riders who are already on dw-link-equipped full-suspension bikes probably won’t complain much, as the tune is quite similar. It’s rather firm, but also extremely planted and controlled. Those seeking a pillowy-soft ride won’t find it here — at least not with how Trust has tuned things currently — and what you feel in your hands doesn’t always jive with how your front wheel is interacting with the ground, or how the fork apparently behaves in the lab.

“My theory is that the drastically reduced hysteresis tricks the brain into thinking that there’s more damping even though the damper is more reactive than normal, and it’s more controlled at the same time,” Weagle explained. “I feel like we are so used to having uncontrolled suspension for large parts of the time we’re riding that the brain tries to understand what it’s feeling and fills in the gaps to paint a picture using what it has learned.

“I know that it’s hard to imagine this from ride experience, but on bump, our chassis is actually delivering similar to slightly less force than telescopic forks (Pike and 36 specifically) at the bars.”

The molded-in post mounts are sized for 180mm-diameter rotors, but 200mm ones will fit with an adapter.

There’s also the issue of compatibility, although not in the way you’d think.

The 1 1/8-to-1 1/2in tapered steerer tube is as normal as can be, as are the 15x110mm front hub spacing and post-mount brake tabs. But whereas every other fork is offered in multiple travel lengths, Trust is pushing the unusual idea that the Message’s single 130mm-travel configuration is ideal for nearly everyone. Specifically, Trust says the same Message fork will work just as well with conventional 29in and Plus-flavored 27.5in bikes designed around 110-150mm of fork travel, or standard 27.5in bikes meant for 130-150mm of travel.

“The Trust Effect lessens the importance of head angle, axle-to-crown height, and fixed offsets on ride feel and bike geometry,” reads Trust’s detailed tech document. “Instead, the linkage takes over the important duties of pedaling support, stability control, and bump absorption.

“Remember that, in the past, axle-to-crown heights were primarily important to deal with the wallow of telescopic forks, but with the Trust Effect, axle-to-crown heights have less impact. The axle-to-crown height on Trust suspension doesn’t change as dramatically as telescopic front suspensions. This allows Trust’s suspension to work on a wide range of telescopic axle-to-crown heights.”

That Pivot Switchblade I rode in Park City is designed around a 150mm-travel fork that has a 557mm axle-to-crown height (which is also what I use on my personal bike). In contrast, the axle-to-crown height on the 130mm-travel Trust Performance Message is just 535mm — a substantial difference of 22mm. That Pivot can conveniently be fitted with a 17mm-taller lower headset cup to mostly even up the static dimension, though, so at least in my case, I noticed the firmness — and quality — of the Trust fork’s travel more than the 20mm of missing travel. Even so, this is something that most riders will have a hard time wrapping their heads around, and not every frame will be so accommodating in this respect.

And finally, there’s the very legitimate question of long-term durability and reliability.

The pivots are engineered with safety in mind. Even if the threaded aluminum end caps fall out, a stainless steel pin holds the pivot axle in place.

Weagle and Trust Performance co-founders Jason Schiers and Hap Seliga all have long histories in the cycling industry. Schiers, in particular, has heaps of experience as one of the original founders of Enve Composites, but the reality is that none of them have any direct experience manufacturing suspension components.

Even Weagle, who arguably has been involved with more rear suspension projects than anyone else in the industry, still relies on the expertise of major brands like Fox and RockShox when it comes to the production of the rear shocks themselves. Even big labels like Specialized and Cane Creek have had high-profiles failures of made-in-house suspension components.

Needless to say, the trio has a lot riding on this, and despite the fact that this will be their first time building and manufacturing suspension products, there’s little room for error.

Riders who live in rocky areas would be right to worry a bit about how exposed these lower carbon fiber linkages are to impact damage. We’ll see how well they hold up in the real world over time, but Trust will also make available individual parts in case something goes awry. Individual linkage bits are likely to be less expensive than a complete set of lower legs on a telescoping fork, too.

“Building the springs and dampers, for sure, that’s something I’ve never done,” Weagle admitted. “But having so many friends and these existing relationships with companies, I have incredible respect and appreciation for how hard it is, and how amazing a job those companies have done building quality product. And I’ve seen firsthand how it’s almost destroyed their businesses by not having engineered-in quality and not focusing on that side of it.

“We hired a full quality control staff. We have to manufacture in Taiwan — that’s just the realities of the bicycle industry. It’s the best place in the world from a high-precision manufacturing standpoint for parts that people who can’t buy Learjets can afford. We put together a full metrology lab, a lot of process control in terms of engineering documentation, computer systems to handle quality-driven design and manufacturing, a staff of people that are there to help develop suppliers, and a very regimented system in place in terms of how we deal with quality.

“There are a lot of steps. For example, every single drawing has multiple levels of tolerancing, multiple dimensions that may be more important than others and have their own inspection levels, we have procedures for inspection levels for every single part — all two hundred pieces. It’s a massive, massive undertaking from a documentation and a quality-checking standpoint. It was truly one of the most daunting parts of this endeavor.”

The fact that Weagle, Schiers, and Seliga understand the importance of getting it right is encouraging, but perhaps even more encouraging is the fact that they’ve been taking their sweet time with this overall.

“It wasn’t until after that first couple of years that I made the decision [to move forward],” Weagle said. “We probably could have come out one year earlier if we had done things a little looser, a little faster, and without focusing on all the quality side.”

And now we wait

Now that the Message has been officially launched, it’s time to wait and see how the market will react. The mountain bike crowd has always been far more willing to adopt new technology than the drop-bar segment, but they also tend to be more price-conscious so it’ll be interesting to see how big a barrier the Message’s price is in reality. There are also questions surrounding Trust’s unusual one-size-fits-all approach.

Having ridden the Message myself, I can confidently say that there’s very real potential for Trust to legitimately change the game here. But the question remains: how many people will be willing to play?

Interested parties won’t have to wait long, as the Message is already in production and available to order through the company web site, TrustPerformance.com. I’ve got a long-term sample inbound, too, so stay tuned for a more detailed report on how the Message performs on more familiar trails.

“I’ve made enough mistakes in my career to fill a book,” Weagle admitted. “I’m certain we’re going to make more mistakes. But for us, staying true to the path of trying to make people’s lives better, and being really true to that, that makes you not want to rush into it. Just try to do it the right way. It’s a long play for us. We want this to be here forever, to outlive us.”

Every pivot is equipped with two cartridge bearings for smooth operation. Whereas the performance of conventional telescoping suspension forks tends to slowly degrade between their typical 50-hour service intervals, the Message should stay much more consistent over its 250-hour recommended window.

Access to air pressure and damper adjustments are safely hidden away behind rubber covers.

Trust Performance provides both high-speed and low-speed compression damping adjustment on the Message fork. In both instances, “speed” refers to the internal shock’s axial shaft speed, not how far you’re moving. In practice, it relates more to the shape of a bump, not how big it is or how fast you’re going when you hit it.

The brake hose is neatly routed along the backside of the fork.

A sag indicator is built into one of the pivots to help with setup and tuning.

The post Trust Performance Message first-ride review: Shredding the suspension rulebook appeared first on CyclingTips.

Bicycle component and accessory company Lezyne started dipping its toe into the GPS market in 2016, and the line has been expanding steadily since. The new Mega XL and Mega C look to compete with the likes of Garmin’s Edge 520 Plus and Wahoo’s ELEMNT Bolt in terms of features, but they do so at a more affordable price similar to the Garmin Edge 130.

Lezyne computers previously skirted around a direct comparison with the big players by staying minimalist in size and price, but these new computers clearly seek the limelight. Has Lezyne done enough to become the true value contender? Or do Garmin and Wahoo computers remain worth the extra expense? Tech writer Dave Rome shares his thoughts.

Mega XL versus Mega C

Just a hair bigger than the Garmin Edge 520 Plus (US$280/AU$450) and Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt (US$250/AU$400), the Lezyne Mega XL and Mega C (US$200/AU$300) computers offer the usual list of modern performance metrics, smartphone connectivity, wireless sensor compatibility, and turn-by-turn mapping functions. Internally, there are the somewhat common inclusions of GPS/GLONASS satellite receivers (no Galileo), a barometric altimeter, and an accelerometer, too. And for those that follow specific training programs, Lezyne has built automated connectivity with popular third-party applications such as Strava, Today’s Plan, and TrainingPeaks.

Both devices do without touchscreen compatibility (hooray!) and instead feature a four-button layout that should be familiar to anyone with past experience with Lezyne GPS computers.

Despite sharing so many features and the same price, however, there are two major differences between the Mega C and the Mega XL. The Mega C offers a 34x45mm (2.2in) full-colour screen, while the Mega XL goes for a simpler black-and-white display in a larger 59x35mm (2.7in) size. The Mega C is also smaller overall at 77x50x27mm (including mount backing), compared to the Mega XL at 79x57x27mm. Weight wise, the Mega C is 77g and the Mega XL is 81g, excluding the mount.

Size comparison (front left to right): Garmin Edge 500, Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt, Lezyne Mega C, Lezyne Mega XL, and Giant Neostrack.

Claimed run time on the the Mega C is an impressive 32 hours, but the black-and-white display on the Mega XL stretches that out to a whopping 48 hours. Both of those trounce the 15-hour claimed battery life on the Wahoo Fitness ELEMNT Bolt and Garmin Edge 520 Plus.

I wasn’t able to confirm such figures, but given that I didn’t charge them during my testing, playing, or fiddling, such figures have to be close to the truth, even if they’re based on a best-case scenario.

The Mega XL (in front of the stem) can be used in either a landscape or portrait orientation.

That larger Mega XL has one final trick. The Mega C can only be used in a portrait orientation, much like the comparable computers from Wahoo and Garmin, but the Mega XL can be used in either a portrait or landscape orientation, similar to what’s on offer from SRM, Pioneer, and Stages Cycling.

Setup, firmware, and mounting

Whenever I test a new computer, I intentionally don’t look at the instructions so I can gauge how intuitive the unit is to operate. The Lezyne Mega computers fare well here, and I was able to connect an Apple iPhone 7 with Lezyne’s GPS Ally V2.0 app (free), a Stages power meter, and other ANT+ wireless sensors with relative ease. Much like Wahoo Fitness, Lezyne relies on the associated app to set up data fields and key settings, and I only needed to consult an online manual for using the mapping functions and updating the firmware.

While a desktop computer is required for firmware updates, it’s easy to use.

The mobile app warns when a firmware update is required, but unfortunately isn’t capable of handling the task itself; you’ll need a desktop computer for that. Thankfully, plugging the device into my Mac and updating the firmware was a simple process, and Lezyne’s web-based GPS Root platform provides clear instructions on how to do that task and much more. Updating the device takes less than two minutes.

Both units are bundled with a bare minimum of accessories, including a USB cable for charging and data transfers, and a single o-ring style mount. That mount uses Lezyne’s proprietary “X-Lock” eighth-turn design, which uses a similar principle to Garmin and Wahoo, but adds a hidden spring mechanism for added security. In practice, it’s like a child lock on a bottle of pills – push and turn to release.

The Lezyne X-Mount is a modular mount for direct fitment to most stems.

Sold separately, Lezyne also offers a couple of out-front mounts, and K-Edge just announced one, too. Or as tested, there’s the Lezyne Direct X-Lock mount system which looks somewhat like a Meccano play set with its many individual pieces.

The X-Mount is a fiddle to install, taking me 20 minutes the first time. The positives are a mount that offers wide stem compatibility, adaptability, and a clean, somewhat integrated, aesthetic. Made of reinforced plastic and aluminium, the X-Lock is designed to be a modular mount and includes an optional GoPro mount which allows you to use the computer and a camera or compatible light off the shared bracket.

I managed to fit the Direct X-Lock mount to both Ritchey WCS and Zipp Service Course SL stems without issue, and it’ll fit many other stems that use four-bolt faceplates and M5 hardware.

The Lezyne computers are already taller than the competition, and the X-Lock mount design only adds to the height.

The X-Lock eighth-turn design works well, but it suffers from an increased stack height over competitor designs. The computer sits unfashionably high from the included mount, and I needed to use the X-Lock mount in its lowest position to achieve a flush screen with my stem. In practice, the screen of the Mega C only sits some 4mm higher than a Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt, and while the added height can actually solve clearance issues in some cases, some riders will still take objection to it regardless.

Despite the X-Lock design’s security, though, one of the three mounts I tested failed. It’s an item that would be covered by warranty, but it shows that the simpler designs of Wahoo and Garmin, while not as secure, still offer their own benefits.

Mapping included, sort of

The Mega computers offer more than basic breadcrumb mapping (though they do have this), and that function gets even better if you do a little prior planning with a desktop computer. But even so, much of it relies on a connection to a smartphone. And while there’s a lot on offer in regards to navigation, more than a few Mega users – such as CyclingTips VeloClub member Jem Richards – have commented that it’s not all that intuitive to use.

The Mega units offer turn-by-turn directions, but in order to kick off a route, you must use the Ally 2.0 app. The app allows you to navigate to a specified point, or even manually create your own route with relative ease. Lezyne offers both TCX and GPX route compatibility, but only the former allows for two-way communication and turn-by-turn directions.

Map My Ride is one app that I used to build a route in a fully-functional TCX format, and you can do similar on Lezyne’s own GPS Root website if you’re not keen on using the phone app.

Once the app uploads and starts the route, your phone connection can end. And assuming you have offline maps loaded, all will be fine.

It’s much quicker to download the maps with a desktop computer.

Limited to a 100Mb file size, and therefore a certain distance radius, the offline maps can be simply dropped onto the device with a desktop computer. They can be created through the GPS Ally 2.0 app, too, however, it’s extremely slow going and not something I’d suggest doing in the wild; you’ll be left waiting! While painful, multiple and overlapping map tiles can also be uploaded to the device if larger distances are required.

Without uploading these “offline maps”, the device will offer turn-by-turn directions, but only with a bread-crumb display. If you want to see relative streets, whether your phone is connected or not, you’ll need to upload the maps.

Street names are provided with turn-by-turn directions. However, the maps themselves don’t offer much detail.

The turn-by-turn directions are decent, providing street names and advanced warning of upcoming turns. However, the base maps don’t offer street names (like Wahoo and some Garmin computers do), and so you’ll need to resort to your phone if you get properly lost. Similarly, the upcoming turn prompts with street names appear on most pages, but not the map page.

Like the Edge 520 Plus, the devices offer rerouting capability, but this proved to be hit and miss. Given my experiences, it’s likely you’ll be riding a far longer distance than actually required if you’re consistently missing turns and relying on this function.

You only get a limited view of the area around you. Want more? You’ll want to use a phone for that.

You can zoom in and out of the maps on the device, but there are only four view options and there were times where I wanted to zoom out to a wider region. Like the Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt, you’re not able to pan left or right on the map, either; it simply shows the area that surrounds you.

And while there’s no issue in following a pre-designed TCX route, the navigational routes provided from within the app are rarely cyclist friendly. I found it always took me on the most direct and fastest path through Sydney’s suburbia, but this often meant riding on busy roads without the option to stay on quieter streets.

This mapping function can go the other way, too — live tracking sent through your phone to designated email addresses is a welcome feature. The data in this link is pretty comprehensive and could provide the basics for a coach as well as a worried loved one.

In motion

Outside of mapping, the Mega units do almost everything you’d expect, and so far, have been accurate and stable in handling ride data. With the option of Strava Live Segments, structured workouts, multiple power data points, and stress scores, there is a lot to like as a training device.

The Mega XL’s black-and-white display offers better contrast for basic details than the full-colour screen on the Mega C, but the latter still wins when it comes to navigation. Neither do as good a job as the Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt in harsh lighting conditions, though.

The low-glare screens offer crisp detail and reasonable visibility in strong daylight, which can be improved by turning on the backlight. When indoors or with the backlight on, the Mega C offers better clarity than the Mega XL, especially when it comes to mapping details. However, the Mega XL’s simpler display is easier to read under the sun without the backlight, plus it also helps that it’s just larger overall.

Like the mapping and live tracking, all communication with your phone goes through the Ally 2.0 app. You’ll need to keep the app open if you want to receive ride alerts such as incoming calls, emails, and text messages. The app seems to override occasional bugs on the devices, too. For example, my samples kept reverting to a different time zone, but would then update to the correct timezone once linked to the app.

Syncing up third-party applications is painless.

Ride uploads are best done through the Ally 2.0 app (but can be done through a desktop, too), which allows easy, albeit slow, wireless transfer of saved rides to the cloud. If you’ve got your Strava, TrainingPeaks, or Today’s Plan accounts linked, the data will be synced with one extra tap of the screen. Either way, the Ally 2.0 app only provides basic training data assessment, so you’ll want to use a third-party application if you want more detail.

Keeping the app open isn’t a drama for short rides, but it can be a little power hungry on your phone when live tracking and similar features are enabled. No doubt the Mega devices will go the distance, but do be warned that your connected phone likely won’t.

Battery checks for everything.

On-screen indicators include battery life and satellite signal strength, plus icons for paired electronic shifting systems, too.

Flicking through the customisable menus is easy, and you’re able to scroll in either direction. However, the buttons are positioned close together, so it’s a little too easy to hit the wrong one if you’re not paying close attention.

If you’ve set up multiple bike profiles, turning on the device greets you with a welcomed bike selection screen – too many other computers make it a fiddle to swap between bike profiles. Likewise, setting up your data fields, the number of pages, or specific items displayed (best done through the Lezyne app) allows you to tailor the computers to your specific demands of each bike.

However, Lezyne has taken a path of easier user experience over one of complete control, resulting in a few minor quibbles. For example, the minimum speed for the auto-pause function is pre-set, and grinding slowly on my mountain bike would see the computer frequently flicker between paused and resumed. And as VeloClub member Jem Richards also shared, enabling actual ride time automatically replaces the elapsed ride time figure, which isn’t ideal if you’re in an event and need to hit certain time cut-offs.

Furthermore, setting the specific wheel diameter to work with a speed sensor gives the sole option of selecting the actual external wheel diameter, leaving you to look in the manual for the respective wheel size.

The portrait menu in landscape mode feels as weird to use as it looks.

Finally, using the Mega XL in its landscape mode oddly doesn’t revert all device functions to that orientation. The pages and maps are all good, but the settings menu remains in a portrait configuration, which is a little awkward with the computer mounted.

Conclusion

Yes, the Mega C and Mega XL computers are much the same device, but they each offer unique differences.

The colour screen of the Mega C serves better mapping detail, however my poor eyesight really got on with the bigger screen, better contrast, and optional landscape orientation of the Mega XL. Plus, more battery life is never a bad thing.

With battery life that the Energizer bunny would admire, Lezyne has done an impressive job with offering these fully-featured computers at the price it does. However, small elements like the stack height, strong reliance on a mobile phone, the slow upload speed, and fewer customisation options put the Mega computers behind the more expensive Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt or Garmin Edge 520 Plus.

I still believe the Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt is the best computer of its kind if budget isn’t a concern. The Garmin Edge 520 beats the Bolt in its mapping capability, but that’s about it. Where dollars and battery life are concerned, the Lezyne Mega computers are seriously good units, and dare I say, the best around for the money.

Gallery

The Lezyne Mega C and Mega XL both rely heavily on smartphone usage (pictured: Apple iPhone 7).

If you try using the computers without a phone connection, you’ll get this warning. It’s possible to skip it, but you’ll miss out on a handful of features.

The Mega C’s coloured display is a little dark at times.

The Lezyne Mega XL offers a clever screen orientation option. It’s not the first computer to do so, but is a useful addition nonetheless.

A side-on view of the X-Mount and the height of the unit.

Here’s the X-Mount front on. Note how high the computer sits above the mount. On a positive note, the mount also holds a GoPro or compatible light with ease.

A closer look at how the X-Mount integrates with the stem. It’s a solid fit once installed.

The X-Mount provides a clean look to the front end.

Especially when using the standard o-ring mount, the X-Lock design places the computer quite high.

The basic breadcrumb mapping will do the job in some cases.

If the offline maps aren’t loaded on to the device, the navigation is rather rudimentary.

It’s much better with the maps in place.

The physical buttons are nice to have, but they’re relatively close to each other.

Downloading maps through the phone app is simple enough, but it’s frustratingly slow. It’s best to use the desktop app for this function instead.

The post Lezyne Mega XL and Mega C GPS computers review: budget goodness appeared first on CyclingTips.

A repair stand is one of the best assets you can add to your home workshop, holding the bike at a comfortable height, allowing full operation of the drivetrain, brakes, and wheels, and offering enough stability that you can tackle the toughest jobs. Whether it’s a simple bike clean or a bottom bracket overhaul, a repair stand will certainly make the task easier and more enjoyable; once you’ve used one, it’s hard to go back.

The most common models clamp a complete bike by the seatpost (or the frame, although that’s not recommended), without having to remove anything. Team mechanics around the world typically prefer the race-style stands that directly attach at the dropouts, but those folks have truly unique needs, and for nearly everyone else, these are the way to go.

But which one should you choose if you’re on a reasonable budget? Resident tool nerd Dave Rome takes a look at three of the most popular consumer-grade repair stands to find where the value stands.

Clamp-style stands explained

The three repair stands reviewed here include the Park Tool PCS-10 Home Mechanic, Feedback Sports Sport Mechanic, and X-Tools Home Mechanic Prep repair stand. That last one is the generic inclusion from the house of Wiggle, Chain Reaction Cycles, and Bike24. It’s also available under a few other brand names, and often sell for approximately half the cost of the two models from Park Tool and Feedback Sports. Both of those brands offer models that are more competitive on price, however my experience shows that the models selected offer the best value.

Tube-clamp stands are the most versatile.

All three stands feature a tube clamp to hold the bike. A good tube clamp should securely hold a variety of seatpost shapes without excessive pressure, and work with virtually every bike in your collection. The best clamps are also quick to grab the tube, easy to finely adjust, and hold tight without slipping.

Need to store your repair stand when not in use? There’s a big difference in how easily these stands fold.

It’s also important to consider how easy it is to set up, transport, and store your stand when it isn’t in use, since few of us have the luxury of a dedicated service area. And yet despite their portable nature, home repair stands still need to be stable in use – and not just on level ground.

If you just want to know the ending, the Feedback Sports Sport Mechanic is the budget stand I’d buy. It’s not perfect, but it does the job nicely all things considered.

Park Tool PCS-10 Home Mechanic Repair Stand

Made of sturdy steel tubing and powder coated in Park Tool’s unmistakable blue, the PCS-10 is supremely popular amongst home mechanics. The stand uses two folding legs with the central beam as the rear supporting strut. Unfolded, the column runs at an angle to the ground, with the clamp then bringing the bike level. The cantilevered design adds stability and keeps the weight away from where the stand is unsupported, but I’d still prefer a wider base; wrenching on uneven ground should still be approached with caution.

The PCS-10 features gussets at the base for additional stiffness and strength. This is the sturdiest stand tested, and there aren’t many other folding stands on the market at any price point that would beat it in this regard.

Of the stands reviewed, the PCS-10 is the heaviest at 7.52kg, the largest once folded, and the most cumbersome to setup (watch for pinched fingers!). It’s not the first pick if you expect to tuck it away regularly or take the stand with you to events, but it is manageable nonetheless. On the flipside, it’s also the most rigid in use and I certainly don’t have hesitations about using the stand when trying to remove a tight bottom bracket or stuck fork. Park Tool claims the stand can handle bikes weighing up to 36kg (as do the other stands tested), and it can hold my weighty Specialized Turbo Vado e-bike without a hiccup.

Quick-release collars are used for height adjustment and to lock the legs, and the legs also click into place with sprung stainless steel buttons. Adjusting the height of the PCS-10 is simple, and the clamp (measured from the top of the jaws) can be set anywhere from 110cm to 148cm from the ground. Do be warned, though, it’s the only stand here that doesn’t have a height limiter, and so it is possible to raise the mast to the point where it comes out of the base altogether.

The clamp head can be set to any angle within its 360-degree range, but unlike the other stands, the clamp cannot be folded. If you want ultimately compact storage, you can remove the clamp head with just a few turns of the angle adjust lever, but then you’re dealing with two pieces to carry.

The Park Tool’s clamp is built tough.

The Park Tool PCS-10 features a more budget version of Park Tool’s 100-25D professional clamp. The folded plate steel and composite plastic construction is more industrial-looking, but the quick release cam design is quite similar. It allows you to quickly wind and then close the clamp, and from there, easily fine tune the clamping force. It’s the nicest clamp to use of those tested.

The Park Tool clamp can accommodate tubes up to 80mm-wide, and features replaceable rubber-covered pads that work well with both round and aero tubes since the clamp secures from the front and rear, not the sides. The clamp pads themselves are 89mm in length; Park Tool’s professional clamp is shorter at 70mm. A shorter clamp may give less surface area, but allows better accessibility in tight spots, small frames, with many dropper seatposts and where accessories may be in the way.

Like many of Park Tool’s other repair stands, the PCS-10 offers a handful of optional accessories, including a work tray, carry bag, mobile wheel truing stand, or even a paper towel holder. Additionally, Park Tool provide a lifetime warranty and has replacement jaw covers readily available for sale, and if the urge ever presented, the clamp head can be upgraded to the 100-25D Professional.

The PCS-10 is angled to the ground, keeping the bike’s centred weight over its long legs.

The clamp is relatively slim, which works well in tight spots where accessories may be present.

The PCS-10 offers a wide stance, but there’s not a whole lot of support if things tip backward.

With repeated wash use, the bolts on the PCS-10 show some surface corrosion. There are only a few of these bolts, but still, stainless steel hardware would be preferred.

The quick release clamps are easy to operate. The weird bulge in the plastic holder is there for some of Park Tool’s accessories. Similar mounts exist at the clamp, too.

Like the Feedback Sports stand, the rubber jaw protectors on the PCS-10 are replaceable and easy to find.

The PCS-10’s clamp secures within a composite plastic component, but I can assure you it’s incredibly tough.

Want the stand to fold down further? You’ll need to remove the clamp head for that…

…but now you have two pieces to carry.

Feedback Sports Sport Mechanic Repair Stand

The Feedback Sports Sport Mechanic repair stand is set apart from the others by its tripod base, a design based on heavy-duty and portable speaker stands from the music industry. The aluminium Sport Mechanic stand is the most stable on a variety of uneven surfaces and is capable of holding plenty of weight. The tripod design, along with a folding clamp head, makes it a cinch to set up and fold away, and at 5.69kg, it’s easy to lift.

The central column is a 44mm-diameter round steel tube, while the aluminium legs feature a collapsed D-shape for additional stiffness. Feedback Sports equips its more expensive stands use quick release collars (and full aluminium construction!) for height adjustment and folding, but the Sport Mechanic has fiddlier twist-style knobs that are slower to use. The Sport Mechanic can go the tallest of the three stands tested at 171cm, but shorter mechanics will want to keep in mind that the minimum height is also higher at 108.5cm.

The Sport Mechanic stand features a simple spinner knob clamp design. It is marginally slower to use than that of the Park Tool PCS-10, but is also far simpler. The weighted ends at least give the knobs some momentum to help speed things up a bit.

Feedback’s clamp is simple in its operation with a threaded system controlled by another twist-style knob: spin it clockwise to close or tighten, and counterclockwise to open or loosen. It’s slower to use than the quick-slide clamp Feedback Sports uses on the top-end Pro Elite stand, but it works nonetheless, and the weighted metal construction means it’s easier to spin multiple times. The aluminum construction features more metal than Park’s, too, and fewer moving parts means fewer things to potentially go wrong. Like the Park, it allows infinite 360-degree rotation, meaning you can secure a bike or any clamped component at any desired angle, which can be highly useful when bleeding disc brakes, threading internal routed cables, or servicing a suspension fork.

The Park Tool PCS-10 and X-Tools stands clamp the tube from the front and back, but the Feedback Sports stand clamps on the sides. It can have its benefits (such as better clamp mechanism clearance where accessories are involved), but it also carries a clear negative.

However, the Feedback is not without issue. Where the Park Tool and X-Tools clamp a seatpost at the front and back, the Feedback design clamps from the sides. It’s a design that works perfectly on round or square tubes, but more problematic on aero profiles. Those shapes also often lack material support on the sides, and so extra care must be taken when clamping them. Alternatively, you could use a Hirobel bike holder, but that would obviously add to the cost. In addition, the Feedback has the tallest jaws on test at 92mm.

That 360-degree adjustment isn’t perfect, either. It doesn’t hold its position as securely as the Park Tool stand, and so some extra force on the control knob is required to lock the bike in a set position.

Like Park Tool, Feedback Sports offers a long list of accessories and replacement parts for its stands. A work tray, carry bag, and truing stand all work with this stand. And like the Park, the clamp head can be upgraded to that of the Pro Elite. Feedback Sports provides a three-year warranty.

Like the Park Tool PCS-10, the Feedback Sports Sport Mechanic stand is capable of holding some serious weight. A trail bike like this is no strain, and even an e-bike sees no complaint.

The tripod base is what really sets the Feedback Sports stand apart. It’s super easy to fold, and even stands up by itself once compacted for easier storage.

A closer look at how the tripod base is constructed. Folding the stand is simple. Those support struts are plate steel.

The aluminium spinner knob has a decent weight to it and spins if you hit it.

The quick-release collars are saved for more expensive stands in the Feedback Sports range. Instead, the Sport Mechanic stand gets these simple twist screws.

These angular legs wear some grippy rubber boots.

X-Tools Home Mechanic Prep Stand

Sometimes it’s hard to argue with price, and at half the price of the other two stands covered here, the X-Tools repair stand gets a fair bit of leeway. X-Tools even adds in a free synthetic work mat, which is perfect for keeping the ground clear of chemicals, and if you’re lucky, might even help you find that dreaded dropped screw.

The setup of this feathery 4.52kg stand is quite simple, and the aluminium legs unfold in a guided manner and the folding head is secured with a quick release. A quick-release is used for height adjustment and for folding. The central aluminium beam is keyed to prevent it from turning, which the other stands don’t offer, and can be adjusted in height from 101cm to 153cm.

All up, the experience of unfolding this one is superior to that of the PCS-10 and isn’t too far off the Sport Mechanic stand.

But while the X-Tools’ overall design is quite similar to the Park Tool PCS-10 in a number of ways, its footprint is approximately 7% smaller than the PCS-10, a stand that is already compromised on uneven ground.

The X-Tools clamp head isn’t in the same quality category as the other two. The old adage of “you get what you pay for” certainly applies here.

Made almost entirely of reinforced plastic, the X-Tools’ clamp head is similar in design to the Park Tool, but it’s noticeably bulkier and cheaper-feeling than the metal units used by the others; in fact, the jaws don’t even line up square. The Park Tool PCS-10 also has a more efficient 25mm cam (the X-Tools cam has a 20mm throw), an additional spinner knob for quicker winding, and a more positive feel overall. The X-Tools clamp also opens to a narrower 63mm and is 85mm in length.

The X-Tools clamp rotates 360 degrees around like the Park Tool and Feedback Sports stands, but the more basic design can only be set in discrete steps, not infinitely fine angles. The toothed locking mechanism does, however, ensure the clamp remains at the desired angle. Even so, I prefer the clutched clamps of the other two stands, where you can quickly swing the bike to a different angle without having to free up your hands.

The X-Tools stand is stiff when under load in the plane of the 50mm diameter central beam, but there’s a lot of noticeable flex in other situations. Thankfully, this only seemed a little worrisome during testing, but it does make me wonder how this will hold up long-term, and it also makes it trickier to pull off heavier-duty jobs when needed.

X-Tools offers an optional work tray on the cheap (though its mounting method is far more rudimentary), but additional items, or even spare parts, are not readily available.

The X-Tools stand uses a similar design to the Park Tool PCS-10, but it still isn’t as stable. Despite that, Chain Reaction Cycles claim the stand can handle up to a 35kg bike, effectively the same as what Park Tool and Feedback Sports claim of their products.

The free work mat is a nice touch.

That large plastic clamp can present some clearance issues, but on the flip side, the jaws are quite short, so they’re likely to fit into tight spaces.

The jaws don’t always line up. But hey, look at the price.

The legs are 780mm long, and compared to Park Tool’s 850mm legs (measured to the centre column), it leads to noticeably less stability on uneven ground.

A quick-release is used to secure or release the clamp from its folded position. There is a sprung safety latch too. The design is fast and effective to use.

The clamp lever just feels so cheap to me but it does work. Unlike the Park Tool, it doesn’t feature a spinner knob and so it’s slower to use.

Another look at the clamp head folding mechanism. There is a huge amount of off-axis flex in this design.

This stand does offer secure angle adjustment, but the positions are preset.

This one aluminium strut is put under a lot of load during use. Like the PCS-10, expect to see some cosmetic corrosion form on the steel bolt hardware.

The quick-release collars are a nice touch.

And there’s a quick release for the height, too. The keyed design always keeps the stand’s clamp head pointing forward.

Choosing one

If you’ve read my previous tool-based content, you’ll likely know I’m a fan of buying good quality workshop items once and knowing they’ll last.

Assuming you consider yourself a cyclist for life, then a repair stand should absolutely be viewed as a worthwhile investment. I got my first repair stand (what is now the Feedback Sports Classic) some 16 years ago and it still gets used. If the budget allows and you don’t own any oddly shaped aero bikes, then my advice would be to buy the Feedback Sports Pro Elite or Classic stand.

The X-Tools price is based on Chain Reaction Cycles’ recommended retail at the time of publishing. However, I’ve never actually seen this stand sold at its retail price, so one bonus point given to X-Tools there. Compatibility refers to how well it fits various tube shapes and sizes. Build quality includes durability and availability of replacement parts.

If the stands reviewed here are as far as you want to push the budget, then my first preference would be the Sport Mechanic stand from Feedback Sports. The design is simple to use, stable on uneven ground, easy to store, and super durable. Do be warned that the clamp isn’t the fastest to use or the best pick for odd-shaped tubes, and so if you own a TT or super-aero road bike, then I’d sooner suggest a race repair stand like the Feedback Sports Sprint or the Park Tool PRS-22.2.

The Park Tool PCS-10 is a stand I’d also happily own. It’ll last a lifetime, but the way it folds is far from refined and it’s best used on flat surfaces. As a side note, the asking price in Australia is just too high.

Finally, the plasticky X-Tools just isn’t something I’d buy for myself. However, it is capable of holding most bikes and will do so at an impressively low cost. With nearly 500 reviews on Chain Reaction Cycles alone, it’s clear this stand is fine for casual use.

The post Budget repair stand review: Feedback Sports vs Park Tool vs X-Tools appeared first on CyclingTips.

Specialized has offered several “Evo” mountain bike models in the past, all fitted with burlier builds that aim to make things more fun on the way down, with minimal sacrifice on the way up. For the first time, the XC racing-focused Epic gets the treatment, with the new Epic Expert Evo retaining the family’s excellent pedaling efficiency, but with more versatility and trail-worthiness for riders that still want to go fast without pinning on a number.

The concept is brilliant. But the execution? So, so close to perfect.

The heart of the Epic Expert Evo

Evo models differ only in component spec, meaning the heart of the Epic Expert Evo is exactly the same as the brand-new Epic platform that Specialized introduced last year — and by brand-new, I mean exactly that, not just some modest evolution.

First and foremost, Specialized has switched the Epic to a single-pivot rear suspension design from the classic Horst Link four-bar layout that has characterized every full-suspension mountain bike in the company range. While this may seem like blasphemy to some, the simple fact is that with just 100mm of rear-wheel travel on tap, there just isn’t much difference in terms of wheel path between a four-bar and a single-pivot (especially how Specialized has been doing it).

Specialized has stood fast to its FSR four-bar linkage rear suspension design for decades. But on this latest Epic, it moves to a simpler and lighter single-pivot arrangement that does without the typical pivot in front of the rear dropouts.

Ditching the dropout pivots makes for an inherently lighter and stiffer rear end, and the weight claims are especially bold. Aluminum frames supposedly lop 525g off of the previous iteration, and carbon models shave a still-substantial 345g. Claimed weight for a medium S-Works carbon frame is now just 1,900g (4.19lb), including the rear shock and requisite fittings and hardware, putting the latest Epic in truly elite company.

Further bolstering the argument for a lighter and simpler pivot arrangement is the new Brain 2.0 rear shock.

The defining feature of every Epic since its debut has been the way the rear shock automatically opens and closes its oil damper in response to the terrain, via an inertial valve that Specialized has dubbed the “Brain.” Although the precise details of the mechanism have changed over the years, the principle remains the same.

At rest, a small mass seals the damper’s compression circuit and keeps oil from flowing through it, thus preventing any unwanted suspension movement. But when a bump is encountered, the inertia valve’s greater density resists the upward motion, while the rest of the Brain unit is forced upward. As a result, the valve then opens up, and oil is allowed to flow.

The defining feature on every Epic since the inception of the model family is the “Brain” – a terrain-sensing bit of hydraulic valve trickery that keeps the suspension locked out when on smooth ground, but opens it up when it detects a bump. That theory hasn’t always translated well to reality, but it works quite well here.

In theory, the Brain keeps the rear end locked out on smooth ground, but active when things get bumpy, all in the name of ultimate pedaling efficiency. The reality of the execution hasn’t always matched the theory, but Specialized has admittedly been making steady improvements in the design over the years, and this Brain 2.0 rear shock — now made in conjunction with RockShox instead of long-time partner Fox — promises to be the best yet.

The Brain unit has always lived near the rear axle, but the latest version places the inertia valve behind the rear axle to improve how well the system reads the ground. The oil that is shared between this remote reservoir and the main shock also takes a straighter and less turbulent path directly through the machined aluminum upper shock linkage. According to Specialized, this allows the system to open and close a little faster, which should — again, in theory — provide a more seamless transition between the two modes. And as has always been the case, the rider can adjust how much force is required to activate the Brain, in this case with a simple multi-position lever.

Frame geometry follows recent industry trends in the trail and enduro segments, but with more of a XC-flavored interpretation. Head tube angle has slackened 1.25° from the previous version for more confident handling at high speeds and on steep descents, while the fork offset has been reduced by 9mm to keep the total wheelbase in check.

Shorter stem lengths across the board keep the total reach fairly constant from previous Epics, but some of that is still offset by the more upright seat tube, which is meant to place the rider in a more efficient position for steep climbs.

The front triangle feels like it was designed more for low weight, not high stiffness. In certain conditions, you can feel the front end loading up – and then releasing.

Other changes include a threaded bottom bracket (hoorah!), wider main pivot bearing spacing courtesy of the dedicated 1x-only drivetrain format, Boost hub spacing at both ends, and a cleaned-up internal routing design. Seatpost diameter has been increased from last year’s 27.2mm to the more common 30.9mm size for better dropper post compatibility, too.

Convenience has taken a hit on the latest Epic, though, as the ultra-handy mini-tool holder that was once built into the forward shock mount has gone away. The previous Epic’s bolt-on storage box (that has enough room for a spare tube, CO2 cartridge and inflator head, and other essentials) is also now only available as an aftermarket accessory, and no longer comes as standard equipment.

Specialized hasn’t carried the built-in down tube storage compartment from Stumpjumper and Enduro lines into the new Epic to make up for that deletion, either (likely because the smaller diameter just wouldn’t provide as much utility). But on the plus side, the unusually open front triangle is still one of the only full-suspension designs on the market that can hold two large water bottles inside the main triangle.

Functional improvements aside, the new Epic remains — at least to my eye — one of the cleanest-looking cross-country bikes available. Looks still matter, after all.

The Evo effect

Ok, so if the Epic Expert Evo uses the same frame as other carbon fiber Epics, can a few component changes really make that big of a difference?

Yep.

The 120mm-travel Fox 34 Performance fork does a good job of keeping the front wheel planted.

Up front, a longer 120mm-travel smooths out the ride more than the 100mm units on standard Epics, while a 2mm jump to 34mm-diameter stanchions improves steering precision as well. That additional axle-to-crown length relaxes the handling, too, kicking back the head tube angle a full degree, to 68.5° on my medium test sample. To better tackle rougher terrain, the 25mm internal rim width is more generous than all but the S-Works Epic, and the stock tires grow in volume with 2.3in casings specified at both ends.

In addition, the standard handlebar stretches out from 720mm on standard Epics to a more capacious 750mm, the front brake rotor grows from 160mm to 180mm for a little extra stopping power, and a 125mm-travel dropper post comes as standard equipment, complete with Specialized’s superb house-brand remote lever.

Availability for the Epic Evo varies depending on region. In the United States, Specialized offers the carbon model in just one trim: the Epic Expert Evo, which comes with a Fox 34 Step-Cast Performance fork, SRAM GX Eagle 1×12 drivetrain, SRAM Stylo solid-forged aluminum cranks, SRAM Level TL hydraulic disc brakes, Specialized’s own Roval Control Carbon wheelset and staggered Ground Control/Fast Trak tires, and an X-Fusion Manic dropper seatpost topped with a Specialized Phenom Comp saddle.

The 25mm internal width on the Roval Control Carbon tubeless-compatible rims provides good support for the 2.3in-wide tires. I weigh 70kg and generally ran between 19-21psi, depending on the trail.

Filling out the remaining spec is a bunch of Specialized house-brand bits, including a straight aluminum handlebar, a forged aluminum stem, and clamp-on grips.

Total weight is 11.57kg (25.51lb), without pedals or accessories. Retail price is US$5,800 / AU$7,250 / £5,000 / €5,300.

Epic speed

The essence of any Specialized Epic has always been its pedaling performance, and more specifically, how the Brain influences it. Just as promised, this latest Brain 2.0 is Specialized’s best system to date, but it’s not without its caveats.

For general trail riding, I found the best balance between pedaling efficiency and suspension performance at one click shy of the stiffest setting. There, the Epic Expert Evo felt truly hardtail-like under power, but with the traction and comfort benefits that only a full-suspension machine can provide when the going gets rough. Whereas hardtail riders have to carefully meter their pedaling input and weight distribution on more technically demanding climbs, you can simply maintain load on the back end of the Epic Expert Evo and claw your way up.

The Epic Expert Evo shares its frame shape with other carbon Epic models. By going to a 1x-specific design, the main swingarm pivot can be made wider and more rigid for better wheel tracking. Note the threaded bottom bracket, too.

Similarly, all-out sprints are rewarded with instant speed without a hint of mushiness, and that 100mm of travel is at the ready any time it’s needed. Transitions between the two modes are remarkably quick, too, and unlike earlier Brain rear shocks, the Epic Expert Evo even reacts predictably when preloading the rear end for bunnyhops and jumps.

But that said, Specialized hasn’t exorcised all of the Brain’s demons — and to be honest, I’m not sure that’s even possible given the system’s design.

That transition between the closed and open modes do strike me as the most seamless ever provided by an Epic. However, as has been the case with every Brain-equipped Specialized mountain bike I’ve ever ridden, it still isn’t entirely unnoticeable.

Bump impacts don’t transmit up to the rider in a way that adversely affects performance, but it still feels a little like you’re bottoming out the rear rim every time the system activates. It’s just ever-so-slightly clunky, in a literal sense, and while I eventually got used to it, I can’t say that I ever grew to completely ignore it, either.

The kinked seat tube helps keep chainstay length to a relatively tidy 438mm.

As good as this latest Brain is, there’s also no escaping the fact that the suspension absolutely relies on that shock technology to work well. With the Brain in one of the more open settings, for example, the ride gets a little more plush and buttery, but it also feels more vague and squishier when you put down the power.

And then there are the serviceability ramifications: Even if you’re perfectly ok with this necessary pairing, you’re forever stuck with the Brain rear shock if something goes awry, along with however long it takes for a Specialized dealer to either repair or replace one that’s no longer working properly. Don’t forget, either, that that steady path of improvement goes both ways: If Specialized comes out with a Brain 3.0, you probably won’t be able to use it (although in fairness, I’m not sure how many Epic buyers would have that expectation, anyway).

I have zero qualms about the geometry, however, as the handling is simply fantastic. Even with the build kit modifications, the Epic Expert Evo is still a race bike at its core, and it’s appropriately quick as a result, eagerly snaking through circuitous trails and weaving around rocks and trees as needed (or desired). But the longer front-center and slacker head tube angle provide a measure of stability at high speeds and on steep descents that no Epic that came before ever had.

The X-Fusion Manic dropper seatpost most certainly adds weight relative to even a budget aluminum fixed post, but there’s no arguing with how much faster it lets you descend. It’s weight very well spent, in my opinion.

Simplified design and all, the rear end’s impressive rigidity keeps the wheel tracking true, and the well-controlled suspension does an excellent job of keeping that contact patch planted through tricky corners. Specialized obviously prioritized low weight on the Epic chassis more so than with the Stumpjumper or Enduro families, though, and as a result, there’s just enough wiggle up front in hard riding to remind you that you’re still on a whippet-like XC bike, not a big-and-brawny trail or enduro rig.

Give that product manager a raise

No doubt, there are flashes of brilliance in the spec; so much so that I wouldn’t be surprised to see Specialized expand the Epic Evo range further in the future. Save for diehard racers who pin on a number every weekend, I’m not sure why any speed-minded trail rider would prefer one of the standard versions.

The 20mm of extra fork travel obviously boosts the bike’s capabilities, but it’s also the generous rim width and tire volume that further enhance the Epic Expert Evo’s ability to tackle rough ground. Although the higher-volume tires are a tad heavier than the standard Epic spec, they come with no discernible increase in rolling resistance — and in fact, they’re likely faster on all but the smoothest trails.

Those dimensions allowed this 70kg rider to regularly dabble with around just 18-20psi of tire pressure, and the bigger contact patch that resulted made the most of the fairly modest tread.

SRAM’s GX Eagle is a fair bit heavier than the XO1 or XX1 variants, but it’s also way cheaper and offers the same gearing range.

Extra money was obviously invested in the Epic Expert Evo’s carbon fiber rims, while pennies were pinched elsewhere. The aluminum handlebar and crank are comparatively average bits, and some might find it curious that SRAM’s second-cheapest 1×12 transmission is featured on a bike that costs nearly US$6,000. But from a performance standpoint, it’s a wise move given how much more performance you get from those lighter and stiffer hoops as compared to saving a few grams in the cockpit or drivetrain. Kudos to Specialized’s product manager for taking the risk.

Specialized claims those tubeless-compatible Roval Control Carbon rims are more durable than aluminum rims, too, and while I only have anecdotal evidence to add, I can at least say that the set on my test bike took a few hard bottom-outs on sharp Colorado rocks without suffering any visible damage.

Speaking of components, that GX Eagle transmission works just as well as SRAM’s upper-end X01 and XX1 versions, anyway. There’s plenty of range for everyday riding, and smooth and reliable gear changes, just with a little more weight (and lower replacement costs when and if things go awry). Did I really miss the carbon fiber pulley cage or the cartridge bearings in the shift lever? Not a bit.

The 750mm-wide aluminum bar is notably stiff and suitably spacious.

It’s the same story for the SRAM Level TL disc brakes, which forego the titanium hardware, carbon fiber lever blades, and extra adjustments of upper-end versions in favor of more basic aluminum blades, steel hardware, and basic reach adjustment. But they offer identical function, with very good power (especially with that bigger front rotor), excellent control, and great ergonomics and feel.

I even prefer the aluminum bar in this context; it feels more solid than a comparable carbon bar, and encourages you to ride a little harder. The grips have just a hint of squishiness so as not to beat up your hands too much (even without gloves), the KS Manic dropper post gets the job done without too much fuss or rotational play, and even the saddle is comfy (the Phenom has long been one of my favorites off-road, in fact).

In total, some of those compromises obviously contribute to the bike’s somewhat unimpressive weight on paper. But like the best bikes, the Epic Expert Evo rides lighter than it is in reality — a trick that’s far harder to pull off than one might think.

Er, on second thought…

There may be flashes of brilliance in the spec, but there’s some spit in the soup, too.

For starters, I have a love-hate relationship with the tires. I’ve always felt that a more aggressive front tire should be paired with a faster-rolling rear one. The front one does the lion’s share of the work, after all, and if any tire breaks traction first, I sure as hell want it to be the rear.

And for the record, the Ground Control/Fast Trak combo Specialized specs here is one that I’ve used extensively (I even raced these exact tires at the six-day Breck Epic a few years ago). They roll fast, they’re fairly light, and I found them to be surprisingly durable on my rocky home trails.

I would have loved this rounded profile when I was still living in Michigan, where the ground is loamier and softer, and where there’s more grip to be had. But in Colorado? Not so much.

But Specialized resorts to a pretty hard rubber compound to help speed things up, which doesn’t work as well on hardpacked or rocky surfaces (or on wet rocks and roots, for that matter) as whatever juju Maxxis bakes into its trail-oriented rubber, for example. Likewise, the very round profile lends a natural and fluid feel when flicking through series of corners on tacky ground, but is prone to sliding out if you’re not prepared to temper the inevitable slide (as was the case when I slid out rather spectacularly on a fast descent in Winter Park, Colorado).

In fairness, tires are always region-dependent, and the Ground Control/Fast Trak pair might be perfect for your local dirt. That said, good tires are never cheap, and while I’ve never found them to be a poor investment when it comes to extracting the most out of a bike, it’s always something to keep in mind.

Unfortunately, correcting the Epic Expert Evo’s more substantial flaw isn’t as easy as swapping tires.

This rear hub has go to go.

I’m sorry, Specialized, but the rear hub on this bike just plain sucks. The conventional pawl-type driver seems acceptable enough, but the ratchet ring has just 21 teeth, which makes for a pitifully slow 17° engagement speed — the exact opposite of what you want on the more demanding terrain the Evo was purpose-built to handle. Making matters worse is the fact that the rear hub developed bearing play after just a couple of months.

I almost wish the rest of the bike wasn’t so good, because it only highlights how out-of-step that rear hub is. It has no place on a bike of this calibre whatsoever.

A hub away from greatness

I so want to love this bike as the philosophy behind it is totally in keeping with what I want out of a shorter-travel machine. It’s nearly as fast as a purebred XC racer on less-demanding trails, but yet far more capable and fun on terrain that one might usually think to be out of an XC bike’s element. The modifications Specialized has built into the Epic Expert Evo are what I would have done to a standard Epic myself if I owned one, and given how quick the bike is under power, I could even eventually accept the quirky clunkiness of the Brain.

But riders that shy away from proprietary technology will obviously be concerned about that rear shock nonetheless, and that rear hub totally holds the rest of the bike back.

Let’s all hope for a mid-season spec upgrade. Pretty please, Specialized?

www.specialized.com

Specialized has long used the “Evo” suffix to denote mountain bike models that were built just a little more rugged and rowdy than the standard editions. In the case of the decidedly XC-focused Epic, what results is a machine that is still very well suited to racing, but is far more capable as a general trail rig than other Epics.

Key differences on the Epic Expert Evo relative to other Epics include 20mm more suspension travel up front, wider wheels and tires, and a standard dropper post.

It’s hard to argue with the basic formula for the Epic Expert Evo, as it’s wickedly fun on fast and flowy trails, and still lightning-quick on climbs. A few details could stand a bit more attention, though.

A small lever allows users to adjust the bump force threshold at which the Brain opens up. I found the second-stiffest setting to provide the best balance between pedaling efficiency and ride quality.

Specialized’s suspension partner for its proprietary Brain rear shocks has long been Fox, but the company recently switched to RockShox. The shock body seems oddly tiny – which it is – but the total oil volume isn’t all that different from usual.

Oil flows between the main shock body and the rear Brain unit directly through the machined aluminum shock yoke and a braided hose.

The bridge joining the two sides of the swing link helps keep the rear end from wagging about in more demanding terrain.

Specialized’s brilliant AutoSag feature makes for unusually quick initial setup. All you have to do is pump up the air chamber to 250psi through the main valve (at left), sit on the bike, and then depress the secondary AutoSag valve (silver cap at center). Doing so releases air pressure until the shock compresses to the factory-recommended sag point.

Rebound speed is adjusted with a small knob conveniently located at the front of the shock.

Both the front and rear triangles are made from carbon fiber on the Epic Expert Evo.

A rarity for full-suspension bikes, the Epic Expert Evo can fit two large-sized water bottles inside the main triangle.

The short head tube is paired with a zero-stack upper headset cover so you can get as low as you want.

Cable routing is internal through both the front and rear triangles.

The rear derailleur housing and rear brake hose make just brief appearances down near the bottom bracket. An aluminum clamp helps keep both moving around or rattling.

Rubber covers the entire length of the upper surface of the chainstay. Combined with the clutch-equipped rear derailleur, there’s virtually zero chain slap.

Fox’s Step-Cast chassis design uses shorter internals and stepped magnesium lower leg castings to help save weight.

The compression dial atop the driveside fork legs provides some on-the-fly stiffness adjustment. I generally went a medium setting to help keep the front end from diving too much under hard braking.

The Specialized Ground Control front tire sports reasonably tall knobs to help bite into loose and/or soft ground.

A faster-rolling Specialized Fast Trak is fitted out back. Climbing traction was perfectly adequate in most situations, and the rounded profile wasn’t as much of an issue.

The chromoly-railed Phenom saddle is comfy and supportive. The synthetic cover isn’t terribly durable, though.

Specialized pairs that X-Fusion dropper seatpost with its own remote lever, which is ergonomically outstanding. The texture on the molded composite thumb paddle is surprisingly grippy, too.

The stamped aluminum pulley cage definitely isn’t as nice as a molded carbon fiber one, but does it really matter? Nope, not at all.

Some might be confused why Specialized would spec carbon rims, but a relatively cheap solid-forged aluminum crankset. A carbon crank would obviously be lighter, but the carbon rims have a much bigger effect on how the bike performs and feels on the trail.

SRAM’s latest X-Sync 2 narrow-wide chainring tooth profile runs quietly and holds the chain tight.

Couldn’t Specialized at least have chosen a hollow-forged aluminum crank? Maybe, but it’s really not a big deal when all is said and done.

The SRAM Level TL hydraulic disc brakes gets a power boost up front with a larger 180mm-diameter rotor. Standard Epics make do with a smaller (but lighter) 160mm one.

The SRAM Level TL brake lever only offers reach adjustment, but the stroke length is already pretty short as is, anyway.

The post Specialized Epic Expert Evo review: XC speed with more sizzle appeared first on CyclingTips.

“Hey! They shop at Wiggle!”

That’s exactly what I used to think when I saw dhb clothing being worn. It was an elitist statement to how cheap the kit looked in its early years.

However, the story has changed. The dhb kit I’ve seen out on the roads has become progressively nicer-looking, and now I often think, “are they wearing Castelli, Pearl Izumi, oh, its dhb”.

With the dhb range showing no signs of slowing, I was keen to find out first-hand exactly how far this brand has come. After comparing the three price points of bibs from dhb’s performance-orientated Aeron range — made up of the Aeron, Aeron Speed and Aeron LAB Ultralight — here are my findings.

An intro to dhb

While still under the ownership of the Wiggle empire (which includes Chain Reaction Cycles and Bike24), dhb is now run as its own brand with a dedicated team of 20 full-time staff, including multiple designers and product developers. Certainly, the brand has come a long way in its 15 years.

As a brand sold solely online and through a collection of the world’s largest online bike stores, dhb clearly has serious buying power. Somewhat uniquely it also has a direct connection with the end consumer. Product feedback, whether positive or negative, is constantly given back to the brand, and certainly, it drives product development.

Where dhb was once used as the low-cost label to fill the gaps around the other products Wiggle was selling, it now exists as a stand-alone range across numerous price points.

Sitting at the entry-level of the range is dhb’s Classic Kit. A look at the price will reveal why this stuff is so popular. The brand then added its Blok range, offering the same technical aspects and level as its Classic kit, but with trendier and more outlandish designs.

The British brand used to leave the design and development process to its trusted manufacturing partners, typically a collection of companies in Italy (such as Miti). This changed in 2011 with the hire of their first (of many) product developers and as a result, the introduction of the Aeron Pro product range.

The Aeron range is Wiggle’s performance attire, and recent years has seen an expansion into multiple price tiers. The Aeron Pro eventually became Aeron, one level above the Classic range.

Then Aeron Speed followed. Bringing in more advanced materials and manufacturing techniques, and with it, a higher price.

And now, new for 2018 is dhb Aeron Lab. The first “pro” level kit from the brand, and one that takes a no-expense-spared approach. The Aeron Lab kit is split into two categories, Ultralight and RaceLine. I tested the former, a kit that’s designed for long and hot days in the saddle, while the RaceLine is optimised for speed and muscle support over shorter distances.

dhb’s Aeron range from left to right. The Aeron, Aeron Speed and Aeron LAB Ultralight.

With three tiers of “performance” kit, I was curious to see what discernible differences exist in a set of bib shorts. The brand admits that the Aeron is its best-selling short, and the endless customer reviews suggest it’s good stuff. So is there value in spending more?

The Fit

Differences in fit are the most obvious and important differences between the three Aeron levels. And while spandex shorts should always be skin-tight, the matching jerseys reveal noticeably more fit information.

I’m 173cm and 71kg and wear a small in all of my cycling gear. Anytime I’ve been talked into a size up it’s been met with regret, and so, I stuck with smalls for everything from dhb.

The three kits offer progressively tighter fits. As with all the photos, the Aeron, Aeron Speed and Aeron LAB Ultralight are shown left to right.

The base Aeron bibs fit like any mid-range spandex short. The legs are form-fitting and the bib straps offer generous stretch for easy wearing. On the bike, they’re a snug, but not compressing fit. Standing straight and off the bike sees the rear of the chamois feel slightly loose, proving these are more generous in sizing. The matched jersey is noticeably loose in its fit too, and I’d liken it to the “club” fit option from a number of custom clothing makers. It’s tight enough to look like road cycling attire, but it’s not skin tight.

Step up one level to the Aeron Speed and the fit becomes tighter and racier. The lycra material changes to one with compression properties, and with it, a noticeably tighter fit around the legs and bum. The sagging of the chamois is solved, too. The matched jersey is a similar affair, and it’s tight with a little stretch to put it on like a premium performance jersey — there’s just a little looseness around and in front of my shoulders.

The Aeron Lab Ultralight is more of a squeeze again, not surprising given it’s designed as a race kit. The bibs see the material noticeably more stretched around the muscles. It’s a similar story for the jersey, which is more akin to a quality skinsuit in how you stretch it into position. I also tried a medium in this kit as I was warned it runs small, but loose-fitting arm sleeves and a slightly bunching chamois were the tell-tale sign that the mediun was too big. The fit is super aero, and the material very thin – together there’s no hope in hiding a lack of ‘form’ when wearing this.

The Features

With each step in price, the construction gets lighter, more supportive and with improved wicking. Equally, the chamois pads are adjusted to handle longer hours in the saddle. And such a progression of price-to-features isn’t exclusive within the Aeron range, it applies when comparing the Aeron to the base-level Classic, too.

Materials change, but the number of panels remains mostly the same.

A quick touch of the panel materials and the differences in the materials are obvious. The base Aeron features a soft fabric that’s almost thick to touch that feels durable and supportive. The Aeron Speed moves to a lycra-branded material with a “ColdBlack” treatment, something that effectively makes the black coloring less UV absorbent to reduce heat. Such technology gives the Aeron Speed’s material an almost crinkly feel that offers noticeable compression. And then there’s the Lab Ultralight, a material that’s supremely thin, light, stretchy and almost silk-like to touch.

The different materials call for different stitching patterns too, and the higher the price, the flatter and smoother the seams feel. The number of panels barely change, and in fact, it’s the Lab Ultralight with the fewest material panels. Similarly, all the bibs feature UV-resistant materials.

All three shorts offer a minimal leg gripper that avoids pinching the leg.

All three levels feature a similar 180-degree leg gripper design with the grippers on the outside of the leg only. It’s a design idea that allows dhb to change some of the seam lines while giving less to go wrong, too. All three models make use of grippers that are effective, avoid sausage leg appearance, and are unlikely to fall apart like common banded designs. The Aeron Lab takes the idea a step further and on a unique path, stitching a silicon fibre directly into the material in a way that saves weight and improves ventilation.

A look at the three chamois pads. A close look shows more layers of different foam used as the price goes up.

The Aeron range gets its chamois pads from the market-dominant specialist manufacturer Elastic Interface. As the price goes up, the selected chamois becomes denser and less bulky, respectively designed to handle longer hours in the saddle while allowing for more natural movement. Thankfully none of the pads used are particularly bulky to begin with and the placement is generally well considered, not leaving any “parts” exposed to the public.

A closer look at the bib straps shows three different designs. The Aeron Speed perhaps has the fanciest straps, while the Aeron LAB keeps it super simple.

Beyond the shorts are the bib straps. The Aeron uses conventional mesh straps with reinforced seams. These are joined high on the shorts with mesh panels to aid in the transition. The Aeron Speed moves to a flat, stretchier and seam-free strap that uses a lighter mesh at its joining points. And of course, the Lab Ultralight is lighter again, featuring a thin, breathable, wide and stretchy mesh that forgoes any transition panels and attaches directly to the low-cut spandex base.

All told, the scales align with the prices – spend more, get less. My small-sized Aeron, Aeron Speed and Aeron Lab Ultralight bibs weighed 177g, 166g and 141g respectively.

The Function

Each pair was ridden through a mix of brisk and uncomfortably hot spring days. My time testing these three levels of dhb Aeron was positive, and even the cheapest model left me with no discomfort or complaint that wanted me to call a ride short.

The Aeron bib short.

Unofficially considered the performance training short within the dhb range, the Aeron combines a number of quality features with a fit that’s more relaxed than typical performance cycling apparel. The chamois, while lacking the foam density of more expensive models, is comfortable in use. The bibs straps don’t cut in uncomfortably and unlike many budget bibs, the leg grippers have proven effective and durable.

However, there’s that minimal sagging at the rear. It didn’t bother me in a flexed position when on the bike, but a sagging chamois is one of the worst cafe fashion crimes and although minimal when new, such sagging will only get worse as the bibs age.

That sagging is a sign of the sizing running on the bigger side and leads to a minor bunching of the chamois when jumping in and out of the saddle. The issue would be remedied with a tighter material, but then that would change the wide-reaching fit, too.

The Aeron Speed bib short.

For just a few dollars more, the Aeron Speed completely solves this complaint. The material doesn’t feel quite as soft, but in return, you get a much more snug compression. In fact, it even feels snugger compared to the Aeron Lab Ultralight bibs. These bibs also benefit from a thinner, faster wicking material that’s cooler in use compared to the Aeron, and likewise, the bib straps are more comfortable too.

My only quibble with the Aeron Speed is where the front lycra panels meet the upper mesh just below the belly button. Wriggling around on the saddle sans base layer revealed some very slight irritation against the central seam. I typically wear a thin base layer and so I only found it while specifically testing for weird seams, and plus, it soon passed out of my mind as the ride progressed.

The Aeron Lab Ultralight offers the thinnest construction in the range, and I found it the most comfortable. In fact, it’s one of the most comfortable kits I’ve ever worn. There’s zero bunching or snagging of the chamois when jumping in and out of the saddle. Combined with the impressively light build, these bibs are supremely good for fast and/or long rides in the heat.

Part of the Lab Ultralight’s self-conscious feeling described earlier is the low-cut bib design. The shorts end at the base of your abdomen and the straps extend straight from the sides. On the positive, it’s a wonderful feature for hot days where you greatly reduce the overlap between jersey and bibs to let your core breathe. Similarly, the low height is perfect for easy nature breaks. However, it also pinches any excess “skin” you have and places it into the jersey – and in the case of the matching paper-thin LAB Ultralight jersey, there’s no hiding.

Compare this to the Aeron and Aeron Speed which use a more traditional and higher coverage mesh bib strap design. This traditional design serves to provide more modesty at the belly, but does come at the cost of pure ventilation.

What to buy?

One look at the price and it’s no surprise to see why these kits have been so popular.

While dhb’s top seller, the base-model Aeron, is fine for casual use, my recommendation is to spend just a touch extra and get the Aeron Speed. Assuming the tighter fit is suitable, then the differences in material support and general comfort are well worth the modest expense.

The Aeron Lab Ultralight is a kit I absolutely loved wearing on hot days, at least until it was time to park up at the cafe. There’s no hiding in this kit, and like a good skinsuit, it really does fit the cliche of cycling gear feeling (and looking!) like a second skin. This is a brilliant summer kit that’s undercutting the price of many comparable products, but just beware, it’s certainly not for all body types.

Even for everyday use and regular body types, my preference is for the Goldilocks of the Aeron range – Aeron Speed. These bibs offer a premium fit and feel at what’s still an entry-level price.

Gallery

The Aeron bib short is impressive for the money, but both the Aeron Speed and LAB Ultralight are even more so.

The Aeron LAB Ultralight bibs end low. Such a design is wonderful for hot days, but watch for that flab pinching.

By comparison, the Aeron Speed bib comes up much higher and provides a more flattering fit.

The Aeron bibs also offer a more flattering fit, but the straps themselves aren’t as comfortable.

The Aeron bib inside out.

A closer look at the front of the Aeron.

Chamois details of the Aeron.

The Aeron offers a quality and effective leg gripper.

The Aeron Speed flipped inside out.

A closer look at the Aeron Speed’s chamois.

And the rear.

Leg gripper details belonging to the Aeron Speed.

The Aeron LAB Ultralight inside out.

The Aeron LAB Ultralight features a minimalist stitching.

This stitched leg gripper is super comfortable, lightweight, breathable, sits incredibly flush and is very effective. Such a wonderful feature.

The post DHB Aeron, Aeron Speed and Aeron LAB bibs reviewed: Battle of the pricepoints appeared first on CyclingTips.

It’s time to turn out our pockets, saddle bags, and top tube pouches and reveal the spares we carry on our rides. In this installment of CT Recommends, our team shares what we bring with us on road, gravel, and mountain bike rides just in case things don’t go according to plan.

One might think that such a straightforward topic would generate a bunch of straightforward answers, especially given we’re only talking about supplies for single-day rides here. But aside from common items like mobile phones, house/car keys, and emergency card or credit cards, the internal conversation between mini-pumps versus CO2, different methods of puncture repair, and varying opinions on extras covered a surprising amount of ground.

What we carry on road rides

Our lead tech nerd, James Huang, has a well-considered kit (pictured up top) to suit the local roads surrounding Boulder, Colorado. And as he often rides alone and on new bikes, he’s well prepared.

“I usually carry an ultralight spare tube (packed extremely tightly to save space and wrapped in a plastic bag for protection), a valve extender with a bit of PTFE tape wrapped around it and a plastic valve core tool, some glueless patches, a single tyre lever, a PRO micro-pump, a bit of cash, and an Ass Savers fender (not pictured) that I roll up around the pump,” he says. “I stuff all of that into one of those old Silca tool rolls that were made by Yanco. It’s a very compact kit that can easily handle three flats, and the tool roll snugs up tightly underneath the saddle with a single strap.”

Tool-wise, James will typically have two.

“Tucked into the steerer tube of my personal bike is a Specialized Top Cap Chain Tool so I’m never without it (it also holds a spare master link),” he explains. “A set of Fix-It Sticks is tucked away inside the tool roll, too.”

Iain’s road setup is minimal and stays on the bike.

Content production editor Iain Treloar and CyclingTips editor-in-chief Caley Fretz both use Arundel saddle bags, picking the Uno and Dual, respectively. Iain’s setup is minimalist with a single tube, a CO2 canister and head, and a Lezyne self-adhesive patch kit. Caley stashes two tubes in that larger bag, plus a small multi-tool, a patch kit, and $10 in cash. And instead of the CO2 canister, he opts for a mini-pump mounted to the frame.

My setup is most similar to that of Iain’s and is equally minimal. I really dislike the seatpost loop on most saddle bags and can’t stand rattling, so I stopped using traditional saddle packs long ago. Instead, I’ve since used SpeedSleev’s compression wrap, a Specialized Bandit Wrap (which only works with Specialized saddles, but I have them on all my bikes), or more recently, SpurCycle’s saddle bag, which is more of a hybrid between a tool roll and a conventional bag.

In it, I carry a Specialized Tube Spool, which bundles a CO2 canister, inflator head, tyre lever, and a tube. The spool keeps everything wrapped tight, and there’s zero risk of the protected valve puncturing the tube. I typically swap the provided Specialized tube out for something lighter and with a long valve, so I’m prepared no matter what rim depth I’m riding that day.

The Specialized Tube Spool houses a CO2 head, tyre lever, and 16g CO2 canister in a central “spool.” The inner tube wraps around it all, and the valve stem runs down the middle, so there’s no risk of it accidentally puncturing the tube in storage.

If I’m testing something that may need to be adjusted, then I’ll slip a bit-based multitool into my jersey pocket (lately, that’s been the SpurCycle Tool). And if the bike I’m on is tubeless, I’ll slip an additional CO2 canister and Dynaplug Air plug kit in my jersey as well, with an elastic band holding everything together.

Managing editor Matt de Neef’s setup is similar to Caley’s, all housed inside a PRO saddle bag. However, Matt chooses to carry his Topeak Rocket mini-pump in his jersey pocket, alongside his ID, public transport pass (Myki), cash, phone, headphones, energy bars (usually Winners), and keys.

For Andy van Bergen – aka Mr. Everesting – shorter road rides see him carry a single tube, a self-adhesive patch kit, and a single tyre lever squeezed into the smallest saddle bag he can find. His jersey pockets then host a Topeak Micro Rocket pump among other life essentials.

Neal Rogers carries a surprising number of small items with him.

Editor-at-large Neal Rogers keeps a small saddle bag with a tube and tyre levers on each bike. Everything else goes into the middle pocket of his jersey, housed within an Eagle Creek waterproof camping pouch. “It’s kinda nerdy, but also so damn handy,” he says.

In addition to a small tube of sunscreen, lip balm, chain lube, and spares, Neal unusually carries a tape measure, something he admittedly hasn’t used on his own bike for years, but often hands off to riding buddies.

Overseeing the Emporium is Mitch Wells, whose Speedsleev kit holds a CO2 canister, an inflator head, a Schwalbe tyre lever, a tube protected within a plastic bag, and half of a well-used Topeak Alien multi-tool.

The rest of Mitch’s kit is held inside a Rapha Leather Essentials case that he slips into a jersey pocket. Inside the case is a Lezyne Smart Patch Kit (which includes glueless patches as well as a tyre boot), a valve core, an expired photo ID, and other essential items. He adds a second tube and a Lezyne Pressure Drive mini-pump to his jersey pockets for longer rides.

European roving reporter Dave Everett uses a small Castelli saddle bag filled with a single tube, a Topeak multi-tool with chain breaker included, one chain master link, a €5 bill, Pedro’s tyre levers, and a set of glueless patches. “I won’t go anywhere without a frame pump,” Dave says, “either my trusty Zefal HPX or a Topeak one.”

Dave Everett’s road kit is built on being self-reliant and efficient. His choice in frame pump is proof of that.

Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom takes a different approach to the rest of the team.

“I carry everything in my jersey pockets, so the only thing I put on the bike is a couple of bidons,” he explains. “I abandoned saddle bags many years ago after my spare tubes kept getting damaged from being stored for long periods. My tyre levers or the valve stem would rub a hole somewhere in the tube, but it would go unnoticed until I needed the tube.

“I’ve also found that because I’m often switching between different bikes, it’s much easier to carry what I need rather than switch it from bike to bike.”

In Matt’s pockets are a phone, wallet, Lezyne Alloy Drive HV mini pump, spare tube, Dynaplug Micro-Pro kit, two tyre levers, and a 20-year old Park multi-tool. “I keep a tyre boot in my wallet,” he says. “I carry all the same gear for any ride, short or long; I just vary the tube to match the tyres on the bike I’m using.”

With the exception of inner tube size, Matt’s Wikstrom’s setup doesn’t change, even if he’s riding gravel.

Andy van Bergen’s no-fuss spares.

The road kit of Matt de Neef.

My road kit is minimalist and lightweight. The multitool and Dynaplug Air go in a jersey pocket, while the rest goes in the saddle bag/wrap. I can repair two flats with this setup.

The Spurcycle pack is very minimal and low-profile with no seatpost straps to rub against. I prefer wrap-style bags as they don’t rattle.

Mitch Wells’ road setup is split between a saddle pack (contents pictured here) and his jersey pocket.

Neal Rogers’ kit is all stuffed into this camping satchel and put in a middle jersey pocket.

What we carry for gravel

Compared to the road, our gravel rides are typically a little longer, a little more remote, and things tend to go wrong more often.

Iain’s gravel kit is a little more detailed than what he carries for road.

For Iain Treloar, gravel sees him swap to an Arundel Dual saddle bag with room for a larger tube. A regular patch kit with glue sits alongside the tube, as does a CO2 canister and inflator.

The original #groader, our editor-in-chief Caley Fretz, carries a screw-top spares bottle in a 3rd bottle cage. It houses two inner tubes, a small multi-tool, a Dynaplug Micro-plug kit (since he’s usually running tubeless on gravel), and a pump attached to the frame. If the bike he’s riding doesn’t have space for the spares bottle, everything gets moved to a handlebar bag or placed in his bum bag.

Andy van Bergen carries a tube, Park Tool tyre lever, self-adhesive patch kit, CO2 canister and head, Specialized SWAT multi-tool, a chain master link, and a tiny bit of lube, all wrapped up in a Speedsleev. Andy also carries a Lezyne HV pump instead of a CO2. “After being caught out in the middle of nowhere after a CO2 failure, I always bring a pump,” he says. “If I’m really remote, then I have a basic first aid kit.”

When it comes to riding his local French gravel roads, Dave Everett picks a cheap Bike Ribbon saddle pack. “It’s not as classy as the Castelli but it’s superb in function,” he says. His multitool is the PB Swiss Bike Tool, and his tyre levers, which double as chain masterlink pliers, are from Clever Standard.

My gravel kit sits at the saddle, held by a Backcountry Research strap.

Meanwhile, James, Matt Wikstrom, and I don’t seem to change our road kits too much for gravel (and it’s worth noting that James’s road kit is already unusually robust as it is). Typically, we’ll just swap the tube for the right size. Personally, I use a Backcountry Research strap on my gravel bike (again, holding a Specialized Tube Spool). The tube isn’t protected from the outside, but it’s secure and rattle-free.

Dave Everett’s gravel kit features a few tools and one trusty pump.

What Iain can’t carry in his saddle bag goes in a top tube bag. He runs this upside-down, within the front triangle of his frame.

A Specialized Road Tube Spool holds my spare gravel tube. Otherwise, the multi-tool and Dynaplug are the same as what I carry for the road.

What we carry when mountain biking

Mountain bikes are impressively reliable these days, especially with how dependable a well-kept tubeless setup is. However, things still go wrong.

For Caley, rides under two hours see him fill his “fanny pack” (bum bag) with an extra water bottle, a tube, Dynaplugs, a mini pump, and a multi-tool. “I only carry multi-tools with a chain breaker,” he says, “because not having one seems like a really stupid reason to walk really long distances.”

For rides over three hours, Caley switches to a hydration pack and adds a small bottle of tyre sealant, a derailleur hanger, a chain quick link, a shift cable, and a multi-tool that includes more tools and a knife. “Also permanently strapped to the down tube of my mountain bike is a tube, CO2, and CO2 head,” Caley adds. “That way, if I’m super dumb and walk out the door with nothing, I’ll probably still be fine.”

OneUp Components’ EDC mini-pump is a clever item with a surprising amount of capability all tucked away directly inside the pump body. It’s all-inclusive, and also easy to move between bikes.

James’ MTB setup recently went through an overhaul. “I bought myself a 100cc EDC pump from OneUp Components,” he explains. “Inside is a high-volume pump, a mini-tool, a chain tool, a tyre lever, chain masterlink, a CO2 cartridge and inflator head, and even a spare chainring bolt. It’s a touch heavy, but extremely convenient and easy to transfer from bike to bike. On the bike itself, I use a Backcountry Research strap to attach one of those newfangled small and light Tubolito tubes and a Dynaplug Micro-plug kit.

“I can carry a large water bottle on my bike, so for shorter rides, this lets me ride without a pack at all. For rides of about two hours, I’ll add a hip pack with a jacket and hat, a hand chainsaw (lots of deadfall up in the high country and I’m always in trail maintenance mode), and some food.

“For all-day stuff, I’ll take a proper hydration pack with extra liquids, another couple of layers, maybe an additional tube (or a real patch kit), some tyre sealant, zip-ties, electrical and/or duct tape, and some very basic first-aid stuff. All of this may sound a bit excessive, but I feel that it’s always better to be prepared than to have to walk home.”

Another minimal setup for me. I prefer the Dynaplug Racer for the mountain bike as it offers two plug sizes. Also, the volume and pressure on a mountain bike tyre usually allows a plug to be installed before the pressure drops to an unrideable level.

Personally, I struggle to shake my minimalist ways regardless of what bike I ride. Most of my MTB rides these days are under two hours, and so I simply carry a lightweight 29er tube, CO2 canister, CO2 head, tyre lever (missing in photo), and a Dynaplug Racer plug kit, all wrapped into a Specialized Bandito that’s bolted directly beneath the saddle.

My trail bike has bolt-up thru-axles and so a 6mm hex key is kept within the spare tube. For mid-length rides, I’ll chuck a small bit-based multi-tool into a pocket. And for longer rides, the one-bidon limit on my trail bike means the hydration pack gets some action and I’ll typically add a pump (a Topeak MT Pocket Rocket Carbon, wrapped with duct tape for random repairs) and zip-ties into the mix.

My spares are carried within a Specialized Mountain Bandit wrap. This bolts directly to Specialized saddles.

Opened up, the Dynaplug is easy to access.

This is how the Mountain Bandit looks when empty. If I didn’t use Specialized saddles, i would choose the Backcountry Research Strap or Speedsleev.

Does your kit vary based on the bike you’re riding? What spares do you carry and why? Any items you love? Any you don’t? Let us know in the comments below.

The post CT Recommends: The spares we carry appeared first on CyclingTips.

Having been in the business of making bike tools and workshop equipment since 1963, Park Tool is undisputedly the market leader in the category. Walk into any bike shop across the US or further abroad, and you’ll likely see a peg board filled with those trademarked blue handles. So strong and comprehensive is Park Tool’s product offering that you’ll have a tough time putting together a full complement of professional service tools without having a few Park pieces in the mix.

CyclingTips tech writer (and tragic tool nerd) Dave Rome has been wrenching with Park Tool’s Advanced Mechanic Toolkit, the AK-3, for a couple of months (and has used nearly all the individual tools previously) to find what it does well, what it misses, and if it’s something worth buying.

How much of a bike can I build?

All of this is included inside the AK-3 box.

With over 400 tools in the company’s catalog, Park Tool has a deep well of products to choose from when assembling its toolkits. The Advanced Mechanic AK-3, with over 40 tools included, sits toward the bottom of Park Tools’ toolkit range, with the relatively limited SK-3 Starter Kit below it, and a number of larger, and more professional-minded, kits above it.

While I’m a proponent of building up your own toolkit piece by piece with quality tools as you need them, there’s something appealing about a pre-made toolkit. You can buy one with minimal prior knowledge, and most of the time, you’ll then have the tools to learn as you go. Assuming you’ll find a use for three-quarters of the tools, it’s cheaper to buy such a kit upfront, too.

The AK-3 sits exactly in this space and offers a smart selection of tools to service a range of modern bikes. Included are not only most of the basics, but also some often ignored tools for maintaining your bikes, and a few more specific tools to do general maintenance or even for building a bike.

The CM-5.2 Cyclone cleaner is a highly useful item, and it’s a tool rarely included in a toolkit.

For example, the chain cleaner, soft cleaning brush, sprocket brush, chain cleaning device, chain wear checker, chain breaker, and master link pliers are all tools likely to be used in regular chain maintenance. Park stops short of providing the cleaning and lubricant chemicals, if for no other reason than to ease shipping logistics.

Standard tools required for regular repairs are included, such as a quality long-length hex key set, a Torx Y-wrench, and common screwdriver sizes. Often forgotten, the tape measure is a nice addition, and the all-important bottle opener is on hand, too.

Tools are provided for other more detailed tasks, such as replacing cables, truing wheels, adjusting cup-and-cone hubs, and replacing a Shimano/SRAM cassette. You’ll also be able to service the vast majority of cranksets and threaded bottom brackets with this kit.

The provided toolbox provides space for a few additional tools.

Where so many competing kits use a dedicated blow-moulded plastic case or specific tool loops, Park’s basic plastic toolbox has the obvious benefit of offering more space for additions, and to fit the oddly shaped chain cleaning device and brush. Such a case may not be as impressive to open, but I’m of the belief that it’s more practical than a case with a fixed tool layout.

When testing toolkits, I like to see how often I need to grab other tools during common repairs and bike work; this quickly gives you a sense of what’s missing. Credit to Park Tool: the pile of additional tools I needed was limited. These included a pair of scissors, a pick or sharpened spoke for removing seals and opening cut cable housing ends, and either a valve nut tool or a pair of needle-nose pliers. All of these tools are small and relatively cheap to buy, but given Park offers all of these, it would be nice to see them squeeze such things in, even if it raises the price slightly.

It’s surprising to me that Park Tool doesn’t include its valve core tool and a basic seal pick (though a tiny flat blade screwdriver is given). The lack of a torque wrench and even scissors is more easily excused.

Additionally, given cleaning brushes and a CM-5.2 chain cleaning device are supplied, I missed not having a dummy hub to hold the chain in place without the rear wheel. This is another product that Park Tool offers, and a good one at that. As is commonly the case due to cost, there’s no torque wrench for safe bolt tightening; adding something like Park Tool’s ATD-1 would be a great addition. And while a little heavy and something you should already own, a soft-faced hammer is sometimes the perfect tool. Like many of the tools mentioned above, it’s something Park produces and includes in more expensive kits, but not here.

Those working on disc brakes will find the common rotor straightening fork and pad/piston press to be missing, too. While I use these tools myself, the included adjustable spanner can be used in a pinch, and a large flat blade screwdriver (also not supplied) in place of the press. Dedicated tools are nice to have, but in this case, it’s not a deal-breaker.

Where the absolute limits of this kit are realised is when building a bike with any press-fit surfaces. There’s no press or bearing puller tools here, and so dedicated installation or removal tools for bottom brackets or headsets will require further investment or a step-up to Park Tool’s Professional grade kits (which are over double the price). This is fairly common, and kits that offer such specific tools, such as PRO’s Toolbox XL, are few and far between.

Additionally, if you’re a Campagnolo user, you’ll need to add a compatible cassette lockring tool, a more expensive chain breaker, and a long-reach 10mm hex key, as with nearly every other kit on the market.

Quality = longevity

A number of tools in this kit are the same as what you’ll find used in professional shops, and a smaller handful are pieces you’d find for sale within a shop, but maybe not used by the mechanics. I’d describe many of Park’s tools as the cycling equivalent of brands like Kincrome (Australia), Craftsman, or Silverline (UK). There are often more expensive options out there (and many cheaper choices), but you’ll still find examples of these brands in the toolboxes of many professional automotive mechanics. With correct use, the tools in the kit are likely to last a home mechanic a lifetime.

Many of Park Tool’s non-cycling specific tools are sourced from other tool manufacturers. Below is a mid-price Kincrome adjustable spanner that’s sold at Australia’s largest hardware store chain. Above is Park Tool’s included adjustable spanner. The Park Tool is plastic dipped, but is otherwise identical.

Park Tool outsources the manufacturing on a number of lower-end and consumer grade tools to tool specialists in Asia, while many of its professional-grade stuff is made in-house, at its St. Paul, Minnesota headquarters. In the case of a mid-tier kit like the AK-3 Advanced, the contents inside are a mix of domestic and international produced items.

The cable cutter is a quality item with cold-forged and CNC-ground blades.

Some of the more regularly used tools, such as the hex keys, Torx Y-wrench, and cable cutter are the same as what Park Tool sells for professional use. The hex keys are a simple L-shaped 1.5-10mm set, but offer great leverage and tight tolerances. Park Tool hasn’t confirmed this, but from what I can tell, the set is likely made in the US by hex-key specialist Bondhus (who also manufactures hex keys for Snap-On and Felo).

Likewise, the cable cutter is a quality item and provides a clean cut on both inner and outer cables. And the included CC-3.2 chain wear checker is an item I often recommend owning, as is the CM-5.2 Cyclone chain cleaning tool.

The kit leaves little to complain about, but there are always things that could be better.

The pedal wrench and chain whip don’t provide as much leverage and are less comfortable to use when compared to the pro-grade tools Park Tool offers. Likewise, I’ve always found the included BBT-9 bottom bracket wrench to be on the short side, too. Bottom brackets are often installed at the factory with incredible torque, and so more leverage on this tool would be welcomed, especially given the plastic bearing preload tool at the other end of the tool sits at the very edge of where you want to apply the force.

If you don’t have body mass on your side, you may need to invest in a bottom bracket socket and a long-handled ratchet handle.

This is one element I don’t understand. Why put a socket wrench at the opposite end of the chain whip? Half the time you need it, you can’t use it.

Whereas most of my complaints with the AK-3 are pretty minor, the design of the combination chain whip and socket handle (SR-12) is just plain silly. At the opposite end of the chain whip is a one-inch socket designed to hold the cassette lockring tool. However, half the time you use this is in conjunction with the chain whip. This makes the socket handle feature a waste, and Park Tool could likely reduce the cost and weight of this kit by putting a different tool, such as the pedal wrench, in its place (as is done with its cheapest chain whip).

Thankfully, a large adjustable spanner is provided, so it’s not that you can’t perform the task of removing the cassette – although Abbey Bike Tools’ Crombie wrench has ruined me here, and it pains me to pick up three separate tools (chain whip, cassette lockring, and adjustable spanner) when the task can be done with just two.

Park Tool also includes with the AK-3 a glueless patch kit and tyre boots, both of which are some of the best on the market. But while both can be useful, I’d rather see them replaced with proper tools, such as a valve tool, seal pick, or scissors. Patch kits are cheap, though, and so Park may have simply included these because they could add value without impacting the price.

Either way, credit must be given to Park Tool’s impressive collection of free “how to” content on its website, including a successful YouTube channel. Yes, you can use this information with other brands of tools, but you’ll likely gain confidence in being told exactly how and where to use the tools included in this kit.

Worth buying?

So is it worth buying a full set of tools like this? I’d liken such a toolkit to buying a socket set from the local hardware store. You’ll likely use 20% of the included pieces a lot, while the rest sit there awaiting a just-in-case moment. If you’ve got one bike and just want to change your chain, I wouldn’t bother with a complete kit like this. However, if you’ve got a family’s worth of bikes – or a bunch of bikes yourself – you’re sure to find use for many, if not all, of the included items.

I don’t believe there are any wasted selections in this kit, either; everything serves a common purpose across many modern bikes. For most users, simply adding a work stand, your chain lube of choice, a degreaser, and some grease will be all that’s needed to create a versatile home setup.

If you’re seeking an even more portable set of tools, then something like the Feedback Sports Team Edition kit is well worth a look. Its wallet-like case can be stored beneath a car seat.

Compared to the likes of Pedro’s Apprentice Toolkit or Feedback Sports’ Team Edition toolkit, which sell for US$250, the AK-3 (US$310 / AU$500) justifies its higher asking price with a useful collection of cleaning and maintenance tools. For example, the chain wear checker, chain cleaner, and chain link pliers are all tools you’ll eventually use.

If you’re after a portable collection of tools and don’t care for the regular maintenance stuff, then the 5.67kg starting weight of this set may not be something you want to be carrying out to race starts or trying to hide in your car. In that case, the Feedback Sports Team Edition toolkit includes tools that are equal in quality, or at least only slightly off from what Park provides in the AK-3. However, the soft case is clever, and it also hits a competitive price.

Park Tool has done well with its AK-3 kit, though, and if you’re keen to get started in the world of home maintenance, it’ll serve you well. In some aspects, it’s the benchmark of kits, but depending on what you’re wanting to do, there may be some gaps in what’s included, or items you’ll never use. But if you don’t own any bicycle or chain maintenance tools and are keen to get your hands dirty, then this is an easy pick.

Photo Gallery

This included sticker may be a little aspirational, but the contents of this kit are a great start if your goal is to become a mechanic.

Park Tool includes two brushes with this kit: one with soft bristles for the frame/wheels, and a second for cleaning the chain and cogs. The cog brush is a personal favourite for cleaning cassettes and chainrings.

The CC-3.2 chain wear checker is an item I obsessively suggest to anyone that rides a bike. Keeping an eye on your chain wear can yield huge savings by preventing undue wear to more expensive drivetrain parts.

It’s highly likely that Park Tool outsources its hex manufacturing to US-based Bondhus. This is a good move, and while the included hex keys are the cheapest finish of what Bondhus offers, they’re still of a professional quality.

I’ve never loved the Park Tool BBT-9 bottom bracket wrench; it’s often too short and I’ve had interference issues on some frames, too. Instead, my preference is a deep bottom bracket socket and a long breaker bar. However, the BBT-9 will do the trick in most cases and it works perfectly with oversized Center Lock disc-brake lockrings.

The glueless patches and tyre boot are nice items, but are most appropriate for emergency use.

Park Tool produces some of my favourite tyre levers. These plastic TL-1.2 levers are super strong, easy to use, and won’t scratch your rims.

Park Tool’s spoke wrenches are almost a staple item of any service centre. The kit includes the two most common sizes.

The plastic box feels solid, with a secure and comfortable handle.

The post Park Tool AK-3 Advanced Mechanic toolkit review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Oh, it’s my turn? Okay. Let’s do this.

In this equipment-centric sport, picking ten beloved products from an entire year of riding is like holding a mirror up to yourself. What kind of rider am I? What do I value within the world of cycling these days? In aggregate, the products below are an answer.

I’m fond of dirt and travel and I really like candy, apparently.

650b for gravel

If you squint your eyes just right while staring at my gravel bike it looks a lot like a mountain bike from 1985, except with better brakes and drop bars. And for a lot of my riding, that’s just perfect.

I love 650b. I love it to an unreasonable degree. Whenever I get back on a groad bike with 700c wheels I feel a sense of loss, like something’s been taken from me. That something, I think, is fun.

There are lots of good 650b tires out there. I’m running a Donnelly Xplor MSO 650×50 on the front and a Donnelly Strada USH 650×50 rear at the moment. Both are basically slicks, by mountain bike standards. And since they’re mountain bike sizes, that seems like the standard by which they should be measured. Pumped up to the right pressure, rolling resistance feels identical to a 700x40mm or so. Maybe even faster, on bad surfaces. I’m serious. I know it looks like that’s impossible, but it’s not.

I can also personally recommend WTB’s Byway in 650x47mm.

These fat tires roll just as fast, but they’re so much more versatile. I can pop onto singletrack, bomb around unknown corners, hit little jumps. I can do five-hour rides in the mountains that include road climbs, singletrack descents, and hours of dirt roads. I can ride just about anywhere.

Yes, I’ve re-invented a 1985 mountain bike, put drop bars on it like John Tomac, and added brakes that actually work. Turns out Tomac was onto something.

Overlander, by Rupert Guinness

I’ll admit bias here — Rupert is a good friend and my co-host during our daily Tour de France podcasts — but I would recommend Overlander even if I’d never met the man. Ostensibly the story of a ride across Australia, Overlander goes far deeper. I won’t ruin it for you, just pick one up and enjoy.

Price: US$35

Specialized S-Works Turbo Hell of the North

This is the best road tire I’ve ridden in a long time, but that’s because I have a pretty narrow definition of what makes a good road tire.

Specialized made Hell of the North tubulars for its sponsored riders in the spring classics. They are basically 28mm Turbo Cottons with a thicker puncture belt and tread that wraps a bit further down the casing for added protection. The Turbo Cotton is a great race tire, but it’s delicate. The Hell of the North version, as you can probably guess, is much less delicate.

The Hell of the North still has that smooth, fast road feel people love from the Turbo Cottons. The added rubber hasn’t ruined that. In fact, the burlier construction makes little perceptible difference to speed (these are still race tires after all) but makes the Hell of the North’s impressively durable. I’ve ridden these on nasty, sharp gravel that would shred most race tires and they came out unscathed.

So it feels like a race tire, but when the going gets rough it doesn’t act like one. And that’s my definition of a good road tire.

Price: US$100/AU$135

Bag of watermelon flavored knockoff Twizzlers

You could buy fancy, expensive ride food. Or for the price of one energy bar you could buy an entire bag of these things.

People knock the Twizzlers candy sticking out of my back pocket until I pull one out at hour four of a five hour day and hand over a sweet, slightly salty, utterly delicious tube of sugar. Then they finally grasp the depths of my nutritional genius.

Price: About $2

Mavic Allroad insulated vest

Layers are king around here. That’s why big, thick winter jackets are useless. If you can’t take it off and stash it in a pocket, it’s just going make you sweaty on the way up and freezing cold on the way down. You’ll end up worse off.

A thick, insulated vest, on the other hand, is amazing. Unzip it and it flaps around behind you — no overheating. Zip it up and it keeps your core warm for the way down.

Honestly, any insulated vest does the trick. The Patagonia piece you hike in? Yep, give it a try. But if you want something made for riding, with a slightly shorter front and longer tail, Mavic’s Allroad insulated vest is just about perfect.

Price: $165usd

Oru Case airport ninja bike bag

A case this small has one very obvious disadvantage…

I’ve flown just over 75,000 miles this year and brought a bike along for almost every one of them. How many bike fees have I paid?

Zero.

American carriers are horrible to cyclists. United, for example, charges over $200 each way to fly with your bike on an international flight. Others aren’t much better. I’ve saved around $2000 this year on bike fees thanks to the compact Oru case. That pays for the case four times over.

Oru cases do require a bit more mechanical aptitude, as you’ll have to remove your fork. For bigger sizes (or bikes with long wheelbases, like a 56cm gravel bike) you may have to take off the cranks as well. But I’ll happily do quite a bit of wrenching to save $400 per trip.

Airlines suck, as a general rule. Don’t let them take your money.

Price: $500usd/AU$685

Velocio Signature shorts

I have a bucket of bib shorts. It lives under the bed. When the laundry is done and the bucket is full and I have before me the full breadth of bib short options available to a hard hitting bike stuff journalist like myself, I always pick up these same Velocio shorts.

They’re the most comfortable shorts I own. Legs are the right length, straps are good and wide, leg grippers don’t bite, chamois is perfectly placed and not too thick or too thin.

Actually, Velocio makes a really nice insulated vest, too. It’s called the Recon, it’s very warm, but it’s also quite expensive ($260usd).

Price: $230USD/AU$315

Yanco handlebar bag

Last year was the year of the bum bag. This year is the year of the handlebar bag. To be honest, each has its uses, benefits and drawbacks. But if I had to pick just one, it would be the handlebar bag.

This Yanco is just the right size. It will fit a small camera (forget Strava, if you didn’t Instagram it it definitely didn’t happen), food, a light jacket — whatever you need. It’s roughly equivalent in space to 1.5 big, stretchy rear pockets.

Price: made to order

Smartmotion Pacer ebike

This isn’t actually mine. It’s my wife’s. She rides it to work, 17 miles (27km) each way. She used to do that on her road bike sometimes, but it took well over an hour and she’d arrive sweaty, with no showers available. Then she’d have to ride against our usual Western winds all the way home at the end of the day. Brutal.

On her ebike it takes 40 minutes regardless of wind and she can do it in jeans.

We picked up this Smartmotion from our neighbor, who runs a shop called Front Range Cargo Bikes (shameless plug, Ryan’s a good neighbor) here in Boulder. It has brake lights, built-in running lights, a nifty LED screen, great battery life, good brakes, and it goes fast without much effort. That was the key. For us, carrying capacity took a backseat to speed. The goal was to keep her commute short and easy and get her out of the car.

She put 1500 miles (2400km) on that ebike in the three months after we got it. That’s about 50 hours that wasn’t spent in cars. And that alone makes it one of my favorite products of the year.

Note the Bar Mitts currently mounted up to the handlebars. They may look dorky, but wow do they work. A thin glove liner is all that’s needed even in temperatures below freezing.

A truck with a tent on the roof

Okay, this isn’t a bicycle. But I’m not recommending the vehicle so much as a mindset.

We put together a little video from Rebecca’s Private Idaho this year that involved us flying to Idaho (avoiding cars, actually) and riding the event. The point of that video was that getting away from your home roads, into unfamiliar areas that force exploration, is a great way to keep the riding fire alive.

The truck does something similar. I know I just talked about how great ebikes are precisely because they aren’t cars, but the right vehicle can do some good. It can take you to Moab, Utah for example, to ride the Whole Enchilada with your dad. Or it can four-wheel high into the mountains. You can put a tent on the roof (ours is a Tepui, and it’s great) and a little kitchen in the back and make it a house on wheels. It’s a mobile basecamp. It can take you to trails, roads, and places you’ve never been.

This vehicle has encouraged and enabled us to ride in new and interesting locations, and for that, I think it’s pretty great.

Another option: Find a friend with a truck. That works almost as well and is far cheaper.

Price: About three Specialized S-Works Venges

The post Ten products I loved in 2018: Caley Fretz appeared first on CyclingTips.

This is a fan. A FAN. And one that costs US$250 / AU$400, or more than twenty times the cost of one of those big box fans you can get at your local hardware store. It seems to make no sense whatsoever. But then I rode it. Damn you for making a ludicrously expensive fan somehow make sense, Wahoo Fitness. Damn you.

I approached the review of the Wahoo Fitness KICKR Headwind “smart” fan with roughly the same level of skepticism I did with the Wahoo KICKR Climb — a device whose sole purpose is to raise and lower the front of your bike in concert with whatever is happening on screen, and something that I affectionately refer to as the “uppy downy thing.”

I initially wrote off the “uppy`downy thing” as a ludicrously overpriced gimmick, the product of a designer with far more imagination than reason, and certainly no sense of a typical family budget. And yet it wasn’t long after I started using it that the thing won me over.

Let’s face it; historically, riding indoors has sucked big-time. At best, all most of us could hope for is for the hours riding nowhere to pass as numbly as possible. However, the rise of Zwift, TrainerRoad, Rouvy, and other virtual reality apps has dramatically improved that experience to the point where it’s almost entertaining (almost).

The Wahoo Fitness KICKR Headwind moves an impressive amount of air given its relatively compact dimensions.

That said, riding indoors still can never truly match the euphoria of riding outdoors, which is perhaps why I was so smitten with the KICKR Climb. That extra level of realism made a very real and tangible contribution to filling that gap, and after using the KICKR Climb for most of my Zwift sessions last winter, I have to say that I’ve grown oddly attached to it.

And so now we have the KICKR Headwind fan. Just like the KICKR Climb, its function is exceedingly simple. In this case, it blows air at you to help keep you cool while riding indoors, but also like the KICKR Climb, it’s the intelligent way at which it goes about this simple purpose that makes it interesting. Want it to adjust fan speed based on heart rate instead? Or maybe your virtual speed? Done.

Wahoo Fitness has intentionally designed the KICKR Headwind to put out a very narrow column of air. There are definitely benefits to the approach in certain scenarios, but also downsides in other ones.

The form factor is similar to those fans you find in home improvement stores that are meant to dry out wet carpeting, and it’s roughly the same size and weight, occupying about the same amount of space as a small microwave oven and tipping the scales at just over 5kg. There’s a small touch-sensitive control panel on the front of the KICKR Headwind, with a basic on/off switch, four levels of manual control, and a few LED indicator lights.

Up top is a convenient handle for moving the KICKR Headwind around, along with a pair of wheels at the lower edge to help the fan integrate a little better with Wahoo’s KICKR bike desk. Unlike other KICKR products, the power cord is hardwired into the back of the KICKR Headwind. This obviously makes it a little more challenging for Wahoo to adapt the KICKR Headwind to different international regions, but it’s a big plus from a usability standpoint since there isn’t a separate power brick to lug around.

The industrial design of the KICKR Headwind pairs nicely with other Wahoo Fitness indoor training products.

Getting the KICKR Headwind set up took all of about ten minutes, thanks to clear and straightforward instructions. Even if you ignore the instructions entirely, though, the operation is sufficiently intuitive that you can still likely get things up and running. Upon turning on the power and selecting either the heart rate or speed-dependent mode, the Headwind will automatically begin searching for compatible ANT+ sensors, locking on to whichever one produces the strongest signal (i.e. whichever one is closest). Those sensors are stored in onboard memory, too, so as long as you’re consistently using the same sensors, this is a one-time procedure.

It’s also worth noting that while the Wahoo Fitness folks would obviously prefer that you match the KICKR Headwind to other Wahoo products, the Headwind will work with any ANT+ heart rate or speed sensor, and most modern ANT+-equipped smart trainers. Controlling the Headwind from your phone does require a Wahoo app, but that at least doesn’t cost anything at all.

Either way, once that initial setup is done, all you have to do is hop on your trainer, start your workout, and the KICKR Headwind does the rest.

As promised, the KICKR Headwind puts out a light breeze that matches with my low heart rate during warm-ups, but it dramatically ramps up in tandem with my effort level, moving a truly refreshing volume of cooling air when tackling virtual climbs in earnest. In fact, Wahoo claims a maximum fan speed of 48km/h (30mph), and in practice, that feels about right. It responds pretty quickly, too, and those changes also occur smoothly, with far finer gradations than the four manual settings might otherwise suggest. It’s also remarkably quiet, even at full blast, to the point where my wife didn’t even realize that I was in the basement.

The KICKR Headwind can be manually controlled via the touch-sensitive panel on the front of the unit, but it makes much more sense to make use of the unit’s ability to automatically adjust fan speed to heart rate or virtual speed.

Pairing the fan speed to my virtual speed would obviously make for a more lifelike setup, but the reality is that having the KICKR Headwind adjust to your effort makes a lot more sense. After all, mimicking reality is nice and all, but I’d rather not roast myself on both real and virtual climbs, or freeze on both real and virtual descents, if I don’t have to.

As I discovered with the KICKR Climb last winter, I found myself growing oddly attached to the KICKR Headwind; it’s funny how even small improvements can have such a big impact on the quality of riding indoors. But just as with the KICKR Climb, I found room for improvement on the KICKR Headwind.

There’s a handle built into the top of the case for easy transport, and the hardwired power cord can be wrapped around the built-in keeper when it comes time to put the KICKR Headwind away.

Specifically, I found the column of air coming out of the KICKR Headwind to be very narrow. That’s by design, but I take issue with it nonetheless.

“The stream of air was designed to be focused for two reasons,” says Wahoo PR representative Andrew Bernstein. “It makes sure that the rider gets the maximum cooling effect and that none of the air the fan moves is wasted by blowing out into any empty room, and if cyclists are riding in the same space, they can each have the amount of airflow they want without affecting the other person.”

The flip-out legs are nice to have, but it’s be even nicer to have more adjustability, period.

That strategy sounds nice in theory, but I still wished the column wasn’t quite as narrow as it is. Even slight variances in left-right aiming sometimes left one half of my body comfortable, but the other half hot and sweaty.

Wahoo doesn’t provide enough fine adjustability in how the KICKR Headwind can be pointed, either. As is, the KICKR Headwind is designed to either sit on the floor directly in front of you — thus directing airflow slightly upward — or you can flip down the two rear legs if you’d rather have the unit propped on a table at roughly chest level. But unless you take the time to place the unit just so, it’s easy to end up with only part of your body being cooled off. Riders with cramped indoor training spaces are likely to have to resort to other measures to get the air pointed exactly where they want it to go.

Separated at birth? The Wahoo Fitness KICKR Headwind uses a similar basic configuration to the carpet dryer shown at right. But while the carpet dryer doesn’t have the KICKR Headwind’s neat “smart” functionality, its outlet can rotate in the housing so you can more easily aim the air where you need it.

I’ve seen fans with similar configurations that have infinite angle adjustment — there’s one in my garage, in fact — and it’d be awfully nice to have that feature here, especially given the KICKR Headwind’s price tag.

And if I really want to nitpick, I’m still a little surprised that Wahoo hasn’t released some sort of platform where the full suite of KICKR products can all be mounted stably and consistently for serious indoor riders. CycleOps previewed just such a thing at the Eurobike show last year; surely Wahoo has something in the works?

More casual indoor riders will likely have a hard time justifying the KICKR Headwind’s high cost. But riders that spend a lot more time riding nowhere will invariably find more appeal in it. The same can be said for the Wahoo Fitness KICKR Climb (at left), which I viewed with great skepticism until I started using.

Those relatively minor complaints aside, I have to once again curse the folks at Wahoo Fitness for making something that seems so grossly overpriced at first, but almost a necessary luxury after using it. Does the KICKR Headwind make sense for more casual indoor riders? Probably not. But for those of you residing in parts of the world where winter arrives early, stays late, never says “please” or “thank you”, and leaves a mess once it finally goes away, there’s certainly a much stronger argument to be made here.

www.wahoofitness.com

The post Wahoo Fitness KICKR Headwind fan review: Crow, eaten appeared first on CyclingTips.

Shimano’s S-Phyre range of racing-focused cycling footwear has been heavily revised for 2019, including a new S-Phyre RC9 (RC901), an update on the RC900, and the new RC7 (RC701) which replaces the RC700.

As Shimano’s only two performance racing shoe options, the new RC9 and RC7 each feature carbon fibre soles, dual Boa dials, and a similar weight. So is there enough difference between the two to justify spending nearly double for the S-Phyre? It’s a question that, on the surface, is not too dissimilar to debating the value of Dura-Ace over Ultegra. But as CyclingTips tech writer Dave Rome found out during his testing, it’s more akin to comparing Dura-Ace and 105.

What’s new and what’s not

In the grand scheme of things, Shimano’s S-Phyre shoe platform is still relatively new. As covered in my review of the original RC9, the S-Phyre range marked the first time Shimano ditched the most common method of manufacturing shoes, where the upper is wrapped around a paperboard plate – commonly referred to as a lasting board – and then the outsole is glued on to that subassembly. Instead, S-Phyre shoes omit the lasting board completely and wrap the microfibre upper directly around the carbon fibre sole, thus reducing weight and lowering the stack height.

Additionally, Shimano walked away from its long-standing heat moldable Custom-Fit technology, something that freed them to use lighter and more supple materials. The original S-Phyre shoe was also the first in the Shimano range to employ Boa dials, a now-common sight amongst the Japanese company’s footwear line leading into 2019.

Old (right) versus new (left). The new RC9 gets a new upper material.

For 2019, the second-generation RC9, or RC901, incorporates a number of subtle, but welcomed, adjustments that supposedly make the shoe more comfortable, but also more supportive.

The previous golf-ball-like dimpled fabric has been replaced with a smoother one-piece Teijin Avail microfiber synthetic. The new upper material boasts more perforations for improved ventilation overall, and larger perforations at the (outside) ball of the foot supposedly provide a little extra give to the material in a sensitive spot – a similar concept, although more restrictive, to Louis Garneau’s patented “X-Comfort Zone”. Shimano claims the new material retains less moisture, too.

The mesh toe panel of the original RC9 is gone, removed to prevent unsightly creasing when the forefoot is pulled tight. Shimano claims that the smoother surface that results is faster in the wind tunnel, but the specifics of that claim seem more closely guarded than the secret recipe for KFC fried chicken. Out back, the revised heel cup design is still externally reinforced, but the shape is modified to work with a wider variety of foot shapes while offering an improved hold.

The original RC9 included a pair of S-Phyre socks, said to be the perfect complement to the shoes. While Shimano still offers those socks, and sticks by that claim, a sample pair is no longer included. I really like the S-Phyre socks, but not receiving them is hardly a deal breaker.

Beyond all that, the new RC901 is much the same shoe as the original RC9, which is hardly a bad thing. Carrying over are the much-loved dual Boa IP1 dials, with dual-direction micro-adjustment and a quick-release function; the “Surround” wrap-over upper construction that envelopes the foot; the directional grippy material within the heel; a huge range of fore-aft cleat adjustment; a replaceable heel pad; drainage ports in the sole; and Shimano’s stiffest carbon sole offered.

The new RP7 (RP701).

Looking to the new RC701, the old single-Boa and hook-and-loop retention combination has replaced with a dual Boa layout. More notably, the shoes have gone through a major aesthetic refresh, and with the choice of white (pictured), black, or a great red fade, they’re easily mistaken for a top-tier shoe.

Beyond that, the new RC7 is much the same as its predecessor. The carbon sole, which rates a 10/12 on Shimano’s stiffness scale remains (the RC9 is 12/12), as does the more basic padded heel cup and non-replaceable heel tread. Cleat adjustment is almost as generous as with the RC9, and certainly, getting the cleats set up behind the ball of the foot is no issue. Where the RC9 has a premium innersole with interchangeable arch support, the RC7 sticks with a more basic footbed.

Both shoes feature Shimano’s Dynalast shaping. This design reduces how much the toe is raised compared to more traditional cycling shoes, an idea borrowed from running footwear.

Both the RC9 and RC7 feature Shimano’s Dynalast outsole concept, with a flatter profile – or less toe spring – from the ball of the foot forward than traditional cycling shoes that is said to reduce foot, calf, and hamstring tension. To understand how it works, simply place your feet flat on the ground and then lift your toes. Feel that tension in your calves? But even Shimano says you can’t simply remove all toe spring from a shoe, as it creates an unsupported and inefficient fit. It’s a fit philosophy that certainly works for me.

Despite the updates to both models, claimed weights remain unchanged from the respective predecessors. Actual weights for the S-Phyre RC901 and RC701 (size EU43, pair) are 512g and 521g, respectively.

Testing the RC900 versus the RC901

Having tested the original S-Phyre RC900 and finding it to be my all-around favourite road shoe, I was keen to see how much of a difference the updates provide.

Heel retention is better on the new version and the whole upper feels more secure and supportive, just as promised. It’s most noticeable in off-plane twisting, but out-of-the-saddle efforts, or even just walking, reveal that improved heel retention, too. It’s still not quite to a Specialized S-Works level of security, but I actually like that it’s not so locked-in. The older S-Works 6 used to give me blisters in this area, and even Specialized has relaxed that ironclad heel hold on the S-Works 7.

At the right angle, you can the light beam through the new RC9.

Differences between the old and new RC9 shoes are more subtle in terms of ventilation. The mesh panel of the old shoe perhaps let in more air in that one spot, but the new version offsets that with better airflow across a larger surface area. Dropping your heels and exposing the sole’s vent ports to the wind also brings a flurry of cool air into the shoe. And if you’re caught in the rain, the upper material’s more moisture-resistant properties will certainly be welcome, along with the carryover drain in the heel.

The general aesthetic of the new RC901 is an improvement, too, and the sleeker, smoother profile is more befitting a premium shoe. I used to look down on the RC900 and see toe area creasing under under load, but that’s no longer the case.

The new RC9’s pearlescent white finish sparkles in the right light.

Shimano offers the new RC9 in four colourways: black, lime green, Shimano blue, or the pearl white tested here. Frankly, none of the four available spoke to me, and the cheaper RC701 arguably offers better choices. Along with the silver-bronze heel cup, the new pearl white will perhaps be a little polarising with its somewhat feminine aesthetic. That’s great given these shoes can, and should, be used by performance-seeking female riders, but guys chasing a plain white shoe may be left wishing for something less showy. But as it stands, the pearl white continues to grow on me.

On the positive side, the upper is easy to clean and resistant to scuffing. Keeping white shoes white can be tricky, but these should hold their sheen for a long time.

Overall, the RC901 isn’t a huge improvement over the RC900, and that’s hardly surprising given that the overall design, and the sole, remain unchanged. The new version offers a more supportive fit and is certainly the better shoe, but there’s also not a whole lot of reason for owners of the original RC9 to upgrade.

Enter the RC701

While the RC901 and RC701 are easily comparable on paper, there are stark differences on the road. The RC701 still feels like a shoe made for racing, but it simply lacks the locked-in feel and premium functions of the S-Phyre.

Whereas the RC9 (right) uses a wraparound upper design, the RC7 (left) uses a more traditional tongue.

The RC9’s upper wraps around the foot, but the RC7 features a traditional symmetrical design with a separate tongue. As found on both models, the lower Boa wire routing is adjustable, and there’s a fair amount of fit control around the ball of the foot.

Even so, the RC7 feels just a tad wider at the toe box than its flagship sibling. Adding to this, the RC7’s padded synthetic upper is noticeably softer and more forgiving. That fit follows on to the padded heel, offering a softer-hugging and more relaxed fit that’s more comparable to Shimano’s premium endurance shoe, the RP9. This gives the RC7 a different feel to the RC9 overall. If the RC9 is a racing car seat that keeps you somewhat locked into a set position, the RC7 is the leather seat of a sports saloon.

The RC9 (front) uses an external heel cup; the RFC7 is built with a more typical internal cup.

Despite being more relaxed, the heel retention is surprisingly great, especially given the RC7 foregoes the RC9’s reinforced, external heel cup and two-way fabric liner. But even so, the RC7 heel area actually seems to hold more tightly than the RC9. I believe this is a symptom of the RC9’s more secure upper and rigid sole leving little other option than for your heel to lift. The lift is not an issue on the bike with either the RC7 or RC9, but it’s something you may feel when trying them on in a shop.

Interestingly, the RC7 also feels shorter than the RC9, despite being the same stated size – perhaps due to the additional padding inside the heel area and the heel cup’s shallower shape. As a result, my big toe contacts the end of my RC7 sample, whereas the RC9 sample in the same size fits me just right (like many EU43 shoes on the market). Thankfully, half sizes are available if the issue presents.

The inner soles are just part of the fit story. The shoe sole shaping varies, too.

The RC7’s more minimally profiled footbed and more subtle sole shaping may be contributing to this, too, since they’ll allow your feet to flatten more under load. By contrast, the customisable footbed and more aggressively raised arch support in the sole of the RC9 produces a noticeable rearward bulge. With time, I found myself wanting more arch support from the RC7, and switching in the RC9’s footbed (which is available aftermarket) went a long way to solving that. The RC7’s fit is the safer option of the two, whereas the S-Phyre extra arch support may prove too much for some.

The Boa dials on each shoe offer micro-adjustment and a full release by pulling up on the dial. However, The RC7’s L6 dial can only micro-adjust tighter, and you must fully release the tension if you want it looser.

The RC7’s simpler Boa L6 dials immediately had me missing the dual-direction micro-adjustment of the S-Phyre’s IP1 dial. Just a click too far on the RC7 requires you to release all tension and start again. I like the option of adjusting my shoes on the move, and certainly, I missed not being able to go a click less.

The RC9 is extremely low-cut around and in front of the ankle; the RC7’s tongue and top strap sit higher. My shallow foot means I’m quick to notice high-cut shoes, and I can feel the RC701s contacting the front of my ankle when I drop my heels. It’s not painful, and frankly I quickly forget it once I’m moving, but it does highlight how well the RC901s fit (at least on my feet).

Another key difference is that the RC7 sticks with the traditional lasting board construction. As a result, the RC7 has a stack height of 8.8mm, as compared to the S-Phyre RC9’s impressively low 4.7mm. A lower stack gets your foot closer to the axle and directly aids in pedaling stability. It’s enough to be felt with a consistent saddle height, and certainly, the S-Phyre has you feeling closer to the pedal.

The RC9 offers precision cleat setup markings, though the RC7 is sufficient.

The RC7’s carbon composite sole is sufficiently stiff under power, and while I didn’t miss what the RC9 offers in this domain, the RC9 is just a tad more rigid again. Similarly, the RC9 offers more pronounced vent ports in the sole, and combined with its upper, also does a better job of keeping your feet dry.

When you combine the softer upper, simpler heel cup, flatter innersole, and taller stack height, the S-Phyre RC9 just feels more stable under load. Swinging my knee side to side sees the RC901 hold my foot more snugly with minimal give, while the RC701’s upper wrinkles and yields more under load.

A very subtle graphic appears in the right light. This only barely captures it.

Aesthetically, the RC7’s are nothing to scoff at. My white samples even feature a very subtle ghosted artistic design. It’s not something others would see without a close look, but it’s there.

Two very different shoes

I arranged this test with the expectation to find the new RC701 full of value and with so much of what the flagship S-Phyre RC9 offered. However, despite the similar names and aesthetic, there’s a clear distinction between these two racing shoes.

The price difference is really quite telling on which is the better shoe. The new RC9 builds on my favourite road cycling shoe – it’s comfortable, practical, and stable. However, it is a shoe made for racing, and the snug fit, additional arch support, and firm hold won’t be for everyone, especially those who prefer a more sneaker-like fit.

By contrast, the RC7 offers that more relaxed fit. It does so many things right, and certainly, it’s a solid race shoe for the money, but if you want a truly performance-minded shoe, you’ll want to spend the extra money. The RC7 may be AU$200 cheaper, but the way the soft upper creases under load and the single-direction Boa dials undo what is otherwise an impressively good, if not simple, shoe.

In my opinion, the RC7 almost feels like the neglected child of Shimano’s footwear lineup, especially when compared to the RP9, Shimano’s top-tier endurance road shoe (which is only marginally more expensive than the RC7). The RP9 shares the same carbon sole as the RC7 but with a subtly more relaxed fit again. It adds an external heel cup and offers the dual-direction Boa IP1 dial as seen on the RC9.

Put more simply, if the RC9 is Dura-Ace and the RC7 is 105, then arguably, the RP9 is Ultegra. Yes, the RP9 isn’t designed with racing in mind, but that distinction seems murky at best. If you’re set on going fast, you really should try on the RC9 – it’s truly one of the very best racing shoes available. However, if you’re not racing (or chasing PRs) and looking for a more relaxed hold, check out the RP9 instead.

Gallery

When debating Ultegra and Dura-Ace, it can be difficult to justify the difference in price. However, it feels well justified here.

Notice how the RC7’s top strap sits noticeably higher than the RC9’s. This presented a small fit issue for me.

From this angle, the shoes look quite similar.

The differences become clearer from other angles.

Despite its far simpler design, heel slip is not an issue with the RC7.

The new RC9 is available in these four colours.

That external heel cup runs beneath the foot, too.

Both the RC9 and RC7 offer a huge cleat adjustment range. The RC9 also has the best cleat setup guides on the market.

Glowing in the afternoon light.

The S-Phyre’s inner sole offers two different arch support heights, and you can skip the inserts altogether if needed.

Old versus new. The RC901 sits up front.

Another angle of old RC9 (foreground) versus new (background).

The new RC9 (left) has a more refined upper. Gone is the mesh panel above the toes, and with it, any unsightly creasing.

The S-Phyre RC9s may no longer include a pair of socks, but they do still come with a useful carry bag.

The RC9’s heel gripper is replaceable, but the RC7’s is fixed.

Sliding cleat mounts allow for plenty of cleat adjustability.

Boa makes an amazing product, but having used the IP1, it’s hard to go to something with less adjustability.

It’s at this spot that the RC7 creases the most.

The post Shimano S-Phyre RC901 vs RC701 road footwear review appeared first on CyclingTips.

Seeking direction on which GPS cycling computer to get? This instalment of CT Recommends should press the right buttons. Here, tech writer Dave Rome asks the CyclingTips team what brand and model of bike computer they use to record their rides, navigate with and keep their power in check. Then the big question is asked: what would you buy today?

Narrowing down your GPS cycling computer selections

Cycling computers have come a long way from the days when the pinnacle was a wired CatEye Velo that offered speed, distance and if you had the premium Strada version, cadence. Then, from the ’90s through to the mid-2000s, the heart rate monitor became the go-to for performance-minded cyclists, and Polar led the way with integrating pulse checking and cycling stats.

However, it was Garmin’s first Edge cycling-specific computers in the late 2000s that redefined what a cycling computer should be. With the addition of GPS technology, routes could be followed and rides tracked. All the features of a traditional cycling computer and the newer heart rate monitors were integrated into the device too. Nowadays, mobile phones and power meters have led the next generation of GPS cycling computers – and the latest crop of computers offer mapping and detailed data collection with a compact screen that isn’t intrusive to the ride.

In my mind, a cycling computer should work without the need for a phone. In many cases, the latest computers are enhanced by a smartphone and offer a number of specific features (such as call alerts), but if your phone’s battery dies, the computer should keep doing its thing.

There is a large size difference depending on your budget and desired functionality. The Garmin Edge 1030 (left) offers class-leading navigation and is nearing the size of a smartphone, while the Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt (right) is an example of the mid-sized GPS computer that is most popular. In the middle, the Omata One is a stylish alternative, although it doesn’t feature in this article.

Typically speaking, the more you spend, the larger the device gets and the more features it offers. Premium products such as Garmin’s Edge 1030 offer superior mapping functionality and a larger screen, but won’t record more in terms of useful training data and metrics.

At the other end, the cheapest GPS cycling computers are minuscule with small screens and often with limited wireless connectivity, so syncing up your phone or a powermeter may not be an option. If all you want to do is record where you’ve been and how fast you went, then these will do the trick. For those wanting mapping and/or more advanced training metrics, you’ll likely need to spend into the US$200 + range.

For most enthusiast riders, the US$200-$300 range will get you the most important features in a compact unit. As you’ll read below, nearly everyone in our team chooses a medium-sized computer from within this price bracket.

Our choices

Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt

Having only been in the cycling GPS game for three years, Wahoo has been impressively quick to steal market share from the dominant Garmin.

Despite gaining major ground in recent years, Wahoo Fitness’s range of cycling computers still only consists of three models. From left to right is the ELEMNT Mini, the ELEMNT Bolt, and the original ELEMNT – but only the latter two are proper GPS models, with the Mini relying on a paired smartphone for full functionality.

Our global tech editor James Huang likens Wahoo’s success to one of Mac Vs Windows. Wahoo’s simple user experience makes the products a cinch to use. Part of this is related to the way a connected mobile phone does the heavy lifting in setup and customisation; rather than scrolling through deep menus and pressing specific buttons, you can set up the computer to your liking with a few swipes of a phone screen.

“I was first turned on to Wahoo’s computers a couple of years ago, with the introduction of the original ELEMNT,” explains James. “While I wasn’t entirely sold on the oversized form factor, the ease-of-use and reliability of the software were huge plusses to me, especially after bricking three Garmins over the years (and losing lots of rides). After the (smaller) ELEMNT Bolt was introduced, I haven’t looked back — and haven’t had any issues, either.”

Our roving reporter Dave “Shoddy” Everett is another convert having only recently bought a ELEMNT Bolt. Shoddy had stopped using computers for a while but recently got back to using his Garmin 1000 in an effort to get fit. Unfortunately, a faulty USB connection had him looking at an expensive repair bill. Enter the Bolt. “Loving it so far: easy to set up, easy to use on the bike. Damn it’s good,” remarked Shoddy.

The Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt offers a unique button layout, while LED indicators above the screen signal turn-by-turn directions.

Wade Wallace, CyclingTips’ founder and a tech product engineer in a former life, is yet another now on the Wahoo train. “I’m a Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt fan now. Such an easy user interface on the phone for display and features set up, and putting routes onto the unit through various programs (Strava, ridewithgps, etc) is extremely easy. Battery life is good (easily 12hrs) and I’ve never had a problem with anything. It’s plug and play.”

And while we’re on that bandwagon, I too have been really impressed with the Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt. As long as you don’t want detailed route guidance or the very minuscule and hyper-specific training data (Garmin is better here), then in my eyes, it’s the benchmark.

Garmin Edge (various)

Garmin effectively created the cycling GPS space and remain the industry giant. So ubiquitous is the Garmin name in cycling computers, it’s almost a proprietary eponym (where a trademarked brand becomes a generic term).

Our entire team have used various Garmin products somewhere along the line, and unsurprisingly, a majority still do. Where Wahoo only has its name to a limited range of new products, Garmin has over a decade of various product lines spanning multiple price points. There are none more successful than the Garmin Edge 500, a computer that Matt de Neef (and hundreds of thousands of other cyclists…) still uses today.

The Garmin Edge (top left) remains a computer used by many.

“I’m still on the Garmin Edge 500 train. The bottom of the screen is cracked and it takes forever to boot up and find satellites, but I can still find no reason to spend several hundred dollars getting a replacement. It does everything I need a GPS to do. And I’m not fussed about mapping – even when using newer units I tend to use my phone for routing,” says Matt. “I’ve reviewed a bunch of newer Edge units in recent years and enjoyed most of them, but every time the review period ends I send the unit back and return to the trusty blue Edge 500.”

CyclingTips’ Veloclub community manager, Andy van Bergen, was a long-time user of the Garmin Edge 500. “It didn’t have all the technical features of other computers, but I was really only ever interested in three things. Time – how much longer does my leave pass have? Distance – assuming I had an idea of how far I was going in the first place. And lastly, elevation – handy for knowing how much descent you’re still owed on a loop ride!”

Andy explains that eventually the Edge 500 got old: “it lost one important ride too many and I ditched it. I’m now riding with a 510. Randomly I find the map crumbs harder to follow than the 500, but really relying on crumbs is pretty useless on anything but quiet roads with few options, and maps aren’t why I use a cycling computer.”

As the founder of Everesting, Andy explains that for elevation attempts, the two wishes for any unit are battery life and elevation reliability. “Pretty much any unit on the market will need a mid-ride charge with a portable battery pack to go the distance (Ed. not Lezyne! See below) and there is actually so much elevation variation between units – even on the same computer brand and model – that the Everesting rules have changed. The unit records the proof of laps, but the elevation gain is calculated of the known segment elevation times by the hill repetitions.”

Overseeing the CyclingTips Emporium, Mitch Wells has followed the same path as Andy, moving from an old Garmin Edge 500 to the 510. In Mitch’s case, it was for the Bluetooth uploading capability, whereas the old 500 requires you to plug the device into a computer for ride uploading. However, issues with the Bluetooth and more recently, data loss have Mitch itching for a new unit.

The Garmin Edge 130 (middle) is likely to be a popular upgrade for those loyal to the Edge 500 (left); the new Edge 520 (right) is there for those that want more advanced mapping functionality in a compact device.

Where so much loyalty sits with the old Edge 500, James offers a beam of hope. “The new Garmin Edge 130 is still really interesting to me, as it truly does seem to be the spiritual successor to the Garmin Edge 500, a long-discontinued unit that seems to have far better long-term reliability than the company’s more feature-packed models. It’s relatively inexpensive, simple to use, and includes all the features most riders actually need, and given the less complicated software, my hope is that it indeed will remain stable over time.”

Matt de Neef may be loyal to his Edge 500 for now, but admits it won’t last forever. “I keep hearing great things about the Wahoo Element Bolt and I think that when my Edge 500 finally shuffles off to the great stem mount in the sky, I’ll give that a shot. Or maybe the Garmin Edge 130. But for now, I won’t be changing anything.”

Mitch shares the same sentiment for his Edge 510 and suggests that if it wasn’t for the price of buying a new unit, he’d be on a Wahoo by now. Instead, “I’ll wait till this thing dies.”

As James explains, even Garmin’s more expensive and feature-packed units offer something others don’t. “Riders who aren’t afraid to really dig into the intricacies of GPS cycling computers will probably still gravitate toward Garmin’s latest, and most advanced, options. They’re more feature-packed than anything else out there, the full-color touchscreens will undoubtedly find a lot of appeal, and the ecosystem of compatible apps means they can be highly customized. But at least for me, I don’t have that kind of patience or time, so the more reliable option is what works best for me.”

The Edge 820 (middle) and Edge 520 Plus (right) are similar in many ways, with the most notable distinction being buttons versus touch screen.

Neal Rogers is one staff member who has been using the more advanced (and newer) Edge 820 and Edge 520 Plus units. Comparing the two, Neal explains, “In many ways, they’re very similar: They’re exactly the same size, they have the same screen resolution, they weigh more or less the same, have the same battery life and the same training data collection.”

“But they’re also different. The 820, which retails for US$350, has a touchscreen display and is WiFi-enabled; the newer 520 Plus, which retails for US$280, uses buttons and uploads data via Bluetooth on your paired smartphone. Beyond the price differential and touchscreen vs buttons, the primary difference between the two comes down to navigation features. The 520 Plus offers routable maps — but not with the same functionality as the 820. The 820 will guide you to any specific street address on the fly, while the 520 Plus requires that the location is either saved to its database or is part of a previously downloaded route; it doesn’t deliver spontaneous turn-by-turn navigation to a newly entered destination. You can have routes on the 520 Plus, you just have to be a planner.”

Forced to make a choice, Neal picks the more expensive Edge 820 based on three factors. “I prefer a touchscreen to buttons. I value spontaneity, and the ability to generate a route whenever you like. It’s nice to upload via WiFi, as Bluetooth connections can be finicky.”

And while his first choice is Wahoo, James says there are other benefits to buying into the biggest brand. “The fact that Garmin is, far and away, the most popular GPS cycling computer brand on the market means there’s a much bigger selection of related accessories like mounts, which many will find appealing.”

Lezyne Mega XL

Lezyne’s new Mega computers offer a long list of features. There are two models to choose from, the colour screen Mega C (left) and the slightly larger, black-and-white display Mega XL (right).

Having only just hit the market, Lezyne’s new Mega GPS range deserves a notable mention. The feature list is pretty much verbatim for what the Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt and Garmin Edge 520 Plus claim, and yet, Lezyne more than doubles the battery life and pulls it all off for AU$100 less.

I only recently finished testing the new units. There’s a whole lot to like and while they’re not problem free, Lezyne is rapidly working their way through the issues. Since writing my review in October, two software updates have solved a number of my original complaints. I get a real sense that Lezyne don’t want to be seen as a budget offering to Wahoo and Garmin, but rather an equal that happens to offer better value for money.

If I were buying a computer tomorrow and didn’t want to pay for a Wahoo, I’d buy the Lezyne Mega XL. That battery life alone, which should mean most riders would only need to charge the device every month or so, should sell them many units.

Smartphone

With so much talk of specific GPS units, one can’t ignore the smartphone. While Strava keeps the exact data close to its chest, smartphones are the most widely used type of device for tracking rides. And given the phone is the most advanced piece of tech you carry on a ride, it makes sense. If you don’t want metrics like time, speed or power directly in front of you, then simply tracking your ride with a pocketed phone is likely the way to go.

Andy may own a Garmin Edge 510, but he only uses it on long rides where phone battery life is more of a concern than GPS unit battery. For all his shorter rides, and commutes, he simply tracks the ride via Strava with a phone in his pocket.

The Apple iPhone 7 is considered a small phone by current standards, and yet, it’s still much larger than most popular GPS units.

A recent gravel adventure had our route planner using a mixture of an older Garmin 810 and an iPhone for route guidance. The phone offered great street map clarity, and in most situations, was the superior device. However, there were occasions where Google Maps failed us and someone else in the group with Garmin’s top-end Edge 1030 would discover alternative paths that the phone mapping wouldn’t.

For those keen on using their phone as a display while riding, QuadLock (among others) offers proven accessories which won’t drop your phone, but still, the risk of a low hanging branch or worse, a crash, present real issues for your pocket-sized PC. Likewise, battery life and the sheer size remain strong reasons to invest in a dedicated cycling GPS.

“No Garmin, No Rules”

That’s exactly what Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom and our Editor-in-Chief, Caley Fretz said about their favorite computers.

A truly clean bar setup can only be had without additional accessories. Photo: Matt Wikstrom

It’s a sentiment that I myself typically follow when I’m not testing something (or myself), and after years of specific training, it can be quite liberating to simply just ride.

The post CT Recommends: Our favourite GPS cycling computers appeared first on CyclingTips.

There are a lot of good bikes out there these days, and heaps of great ones, too. Truly superb ones, however, are much more rare. One bike that inarguably fits into that latter category is the Moots Routt RSL, the flagship titanium gravel “forever” bike from the legendary Colorado small-batch builder.

The Routt RSL is anything but inexpensive, though, and numbers-obsessive buyers may struggle to find its appeal next to high-performance carbon fiber machines. But titanium devotees will need no convincing of the Routt RSL’s worth, and when you ride it — oh, how this bike rides — it all becomes clear. Had I room in the family budget, I wouldn’t be shipping this bike back to Steamboat Springs; instead, it’d take up permanent residence in my garage.

The Moots approach to high-end titanium

Moots is one of the best-known and most highly respected titanium frame builders on earth, but founder Kent Eriksen spent his first decade at the torch welding together tubes made of steel. In the early 1990s, Eriksen came up with the YBB (Why Be Beat) rear suspension system for mountain bikes, which relied on chainstay flex and a small steel coil spring inside a telescoping section of a seatstay wishbone to provide about 20mm of wheel travel.

Eriksen was rightfully concerned with how the chainstays would hold up over time. Steel work hardens with repeated bending, meaning it gradually becomes more brittle and loses its elasticity. Just like a paper clip that is bent over and over again, even the best steel tube will start to crack — but exactly when was the question Eriksen was looking to answer.

I vacillate between wanting titanium bikes to have color vs. leaving their natural beauty to shine unadorned. But regardless of how you dress it up, the Moots Routt RSL delivers an undeniably vivid personality.

He turned to the engineering gurus at the Colorado School of Mines for help, and they rigged up a data acquisition system to a steel YBB frame to determine just how much stress and strain it experienced during a ride. The conclusion? Steel wouldn’t cut it. But titanium would, thanks to its far superior fatigue life, and just like that, Moots switched to that mysterious wonder metal practically overnight.

Today, Moots’ total production volume hovers around 1,000 frames per year. Custom geometry is still offered, but there are definitely advantages to the small-batch approach. That sort of volume allows Moots to invest more in product development than many other titanium outfits, and it shows in the top-end RSL variants offered for the company’s road, ‘cross, gravel, and mountain bikes.

The Routt RSL can handle dirt and gravel roads, paved roads, and even moderate singletrack with ease and grace. It’s a quiet performer that simply goes about its business.

In the case of the Routt RSL here, that means oversized and custom butted 3/2.5 titanium main tubes with size-specific tubing diameters and butting profiles, sleek wishbone-style seatstays, and an oversized 44mm-diameter head tube. All of the tubing is sourced from well-known suppliers Sandvik, Haynes, and Reynolds, depending on the application.

“The larger the frame and weight of the rider, the longer the butt length and greater the diameter of the tube,” explained Moots marketing man Jon Cariveau. “Butt lengths are biased to stress areas in the frame, such as the head tube. The goal is to maximize diameter for strength in intersecting points of the frame, and the butts were developed with the goal of having an adequate amount of material for strength for high-stress zones. The butts and tapers were dictated by two things: ride quality characteristics and durability/manufacturability. Yes, [the RSL frames] could be lighter, but they would not ride as good and would probably not be as durable.”

The tube profiles are round throughout, but yet the ride and performance are truly sublime.

Perhaps the neatest thing about the Routt RSL frame, however, is its ultra-trick 3D-printed titanium rear dropouts. First offered in 2016, Moots developed these as a way to more consistently manufacture frames with flat-mount disc brake tabs. Unlike the post-mount tabs that were the norm up until them, flat-mount tabs are located further away from the centerline of the chainstay (or seatstay), and create a greater concentration of heat in a relatively small area. As a result, it’s much more difficult to keep heat-related warping at bay, and the rear end properly aligned.

But by forming the brake tabs with the rest of the dropout as a single piece, that sub-assembly could then be welded to the end of the tube in a more uniform fashion. Fender mounts can be easily and cleanly added in, too (and are standard-issue on the Routt RSL). According to Moots, the 3D-printed parts themselves are far more expensive to produce than conventional titanium dropouts, but what’s saved in terms of time and frame quality easily justifies the investment — and they look awfully cool, too.

Although those fancy dropouts are manufactured elsewhere, Moots machines most of the smaller titanium and aluminum fittings in-house, and also does its own anodized frame graphics as well.

The 3D-printed dropouts are brilliant pieces of engineering. Flat-mount brake tabs are typically quite problematic for welded titanium frames, but since the mounts are incorporated directly into the printed part, heat-induced warping becomes a non-issue.

Cariveau says that the RSL frames could be lighter, but the Routt RSL is already quite light as is, with a claimed weight of 1,400g in a 54cm size, with the matching Moots carbon fork adding another 475g. Seven stock sizes are offered, ranging from 50-60cm, and custom geometry is available if one of those seven doesn’t suit your proportions. Whether a customer goes with stock or custom geometry, there are a wealth of options available, including a variety of different routing styles for mechanical, hydraulic, wired electronic, or wireless electronic transmissions, and a 1cm head tube extension, all of which are included in the purchase price.

For additional fees, customers can also opt for internal rear brake hose routing (through the down tube only), a third water bottle mount (all of which are welded in place), a chain hanger, or an engraved head tube in place of the standard badge. If you insisted upon it, Moots would probably incorporate some sort of press-fit bottom bracket shell for you, too — but thankfully, a standard English-threaded one is the standard configuration.

Geometry-wise, the Routt RSL is a hybrid between the company’s more cyclocross racing-focused PsychloX and the more casual standard Routt gravel model, essentially pairing the more aggressive positioning of the former with most of the stability of the latter, all while leaving ample room for 40mm-wide tires on 700c rims. Some 650b setups may technically fit, but Moots doesn’t recommend it.

The 71mm of bottom bracket drop is shared with the Routt to provide similar high-speed confidence on loose surfaces, but the dartier 72-degree head tube is borrowed from the Psychlo X, and a full degree steeper for more responsive steering. Interestingly, the Routt RSL’s 430mm chainstays are 7mm longer than what Moots uses on both the Psychlo X and the standard Routt. Either way, the same 47mm fork rake is used throughout the size range — the only disappointment I have on paper. Moots uses two different rakes for its in-house carbon road forks, but couldn’t justify investing in additional molds for the Routt range just yet.

You want perfect welds? Feast your eyes.

Fit-wise, the Routt RSL is closer to the Psychlo X, with my 52cm Routt RSL sample’s 567mm stack and 369mm reach within a few millimeters of that dedicated ‘cross racer — a major departure from the standard Routt’s much more upright 582mm stack and 361mm reach figures.

Retail price is pretty much as you’d expect. The standard Routt RSL frameset (which includes the Moots carbon fork and a Chris King I7 headset) sells for US$5,519 / AU$8,888, or US$10,845 / €12,577 as pictured here, built with a SRAM Red eTap HRD groupset, Chris King R45/HED Belgium+ aluminum tubeless clincher wheels, a Chris King bottom bracket, a Moots titanium stem and seatpost, an Enve carbon handlebar, a PRO saddle, and the optional internal rear brake routing.

Other build kits and configurations are obviously available as well, but no matter how you slice it, the Routt RSL is no bargain machine.

Actual weight for my complete bike (sans pedals) is 7.99kg (17.61lb).

Magic on the road — and off of it, too

One of the benefits of having a child is having a perfectly valid excuse to see a wealth of movies you otherwise wouldn’t be caught dead watching before. One that came to mind while I was trying to figure out why this Moots was so good was Ratatouille — a tale about a Parisian mouse named Remy, who just happened to be a masterful chef and general connoisseur of fine cuisine.

In one scene, Remy does his best to describe to his older brother, Emile, how certain foods are more than just the sum of their parts. Rather, it’s the way the different flavors combine and complement each other that makes dishes particularly special.

While this may seem like a strange analogy, that’s exactly what I found with the Moots Routt RSL. On paper, it maybe doesn’t seem like it should be all that special (nor did I necessarily expect it to be so before I rode it). But this magical combination of a perfectly tuned frame and fork, fantastic geometry, and a smart blend of componentry truly does make for a magical experience.

Titanium holds a curious appeal to devotees, who will often wax lyrical about how mysterious metal’s performance transcends definition. However, it’s how a frame is engineered and designed that determines if it fully realizes the potential of the material from which it’s made — and titanium is no less immune to feeling noodly, dead, harsh, etc.

The Routt RSL strikes a very conventional profile, with lots of straight lines and a modestly sloping top tube.

But with this Routt RSL, Moots has seemingly left nothing on the table, and any Routt RSL owner will clearly benefit from the effort put forth in its design and development.

I often find smaller-tubed titanium bikes to be a little lackluster dynamically, but the Routt RSL is a veritable spitfire, always eager for more. The oversized tubing responds just as you’d expect, with ample “snap” and rigidity when you put down the power, and a front triangle that feels stout in your hands when you throw the bike side-to-side in out-of-saddle climbs and sprints. The wishbone-style rear end tracks true when charging through rough corners, too, with nary a hint of wag.

But yet that stoutness is also accompanied by that springiness and resilience often associated with top-shelf titanium frames. I’ve no doubt that the Routt RSL wouldn’t post bench test stiffness numbers that can match the best carbon fiber frames out there — the Scott Addict Gravel and Allied Alfa Allroad immediately come to mind — but there’s an odd sense of symbiosis here nevertheless. Regular listeners of the CyclingTips podcast will recall a conversation I had with Jan Heine. Heine believes that the flex characteristics of certain bikes sometimes have a way of working perfectly with their riders, feeling like they amplify, rather than dull, their efforts. A scientific explanation of such a concept still eludes me, but I’ll be damned if I wasn’t feeling something akin to what Heine was describing.

The chainstays follow a subtle S-bend as they make their way from the bottom bracket to the dropouts.

There’s also an undeniable creaminess in how the Routt RSL rides, despite the oversized 30.9mm-diameter titanium seatpost. The ride quality is firm and communicative, but yet also smooth and coddling. For sure, the 35mm-wide Schwalbe G-One Allround tires play a role here, but having also ridden a number of other wheel-and-tire combinations on the Routt RSL, I’m comfortable assigning a fair bit of credit directly to the frameset.

Frame geometry feels spot-on to me as well, at least when using the larger-volume tires that are ideally suited for the Routt RSL’s intended purpose. Much like the Trek Checkpoint, the Routt RSL pairs a more responsive steering geometry with a low bottom bracket and a comparatively long rear end. On the road — or trail — this makes the Routt RSL eager to change direction, but it also lends heaps of confidence if you end up in a pile of marbles mid-corner.

Having spent ample time on the standard version of the Routt, I have to say that the RSL version’s more aggressive fit is far more in keeping with what I prefer for this genre of bike, too. Upright positioning may be just what the doctor ordered for many riders looking to venture off the tarmac, but I still strongly believe there are handling benefits to having a more balanced weight distribution. More weight on the front tire means more traction, after all, and I generally prefer my bikes to go where I ask them to, not plow through the outside of a turn.

The matching Moots Cinch seatpost is a pricey add-on, but when you’re already spending an obscene amount on the frame, what’s another few hundred dollars, right?

One of the appeals of something like the Routt RSL is the idea that it could serve as both a gravel machine and a standard road bike, provided you’ve got two sets of wheels and tires on hand. Thankfully, all of the frame’s positive attributes carry over to the tarmac: that incredibly lustful ride quality, the responsiveness, the promise of lifetime durability. With a set of deeper-section aero wheels and 25mm-wide slicks, the bike definitely feels more like a standard road bike in terms of overall speed and rolling resistance.

However, the smaller total wheel-and-tire diameter also makes for slightly floppier handling. I didn’t find it enough to be overly objectionable, but I’d still recommend that anyone looking to the Routt RSL to serve double duty that they stick to slicks of at least 30mm or so in width.

Just as that wise rodent, Remy, surmises, the overall performance of any bike isn’t solely due to a single factor, and I’d be remiss if I credited everything I’ve enjoyed about this Routt RSL tester to the frameset. But this particular combination is oh-so-good.

Moots frames can obviously be built as you like, but this HED Belgium+/Chris King R45 wheelset and Schwalbe G-One tire combination is simply sublime: light, snappy, and with a stiffness profile that seems perfectly matched to the frame.

The wheel-and-tire package complements the frame’s spring and snap especially well. Moots sent my loaner out with handbuilt HED Belgium+/Chris King R45 wheels, wrapped with 35mm-wide Schwalbe G-One Allround tubeless clinchers. The wheels are admirably light, but also well-matched in terms of flex characteristics, and as I’ve stated on numerous times in the past, the G-Ones roll remarkably quickly on tarmac, but yet also provide surprisingly sure traction on dirt. It’s a winning combination that I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend.

I also ran a set of Industry Nine Ultralite CX 235 TRA wheels and 40mm-wide Maxxis Rambler tires to check out the Routt RSL’s ability to handle burlier terrain. As promised, the bike handled mild singletrack and poorly maintained jeep roads with aplomb, but that wheelset was also noticeably stiffer, and lost some of the original spec’s magic, in my opinion.

Perhaps also contributing to the sum total are the Moots TIG-welded titanium stem and seatpost, both of which also not only likely add to the frame’s unique feel, but also yield a more visually cohesive total package.

If you’re going to bother with the Moots seatpost, then the stem is a must as well. It obviously adds to the visual cohesiveness, but it also seems to contribute to the bike’s ride quality, too.

Otherwise, there’s not much else that needs to be said about the SRAM Red eTap groupset or Enve carbon fiber bar. The latter is one of my favorites, and SRAM’s flagship component package continues to be a stalwart performer with outstanding ergonomics, best-in-class overall braking performance, and the most intuitive shifting of any drivetrain — electronic or otherwise. The fact that there are no stops or ports required for housing or wiring is a nice visual bonus, too.

Where’s my credit card?

Bikes are functional machines, designed on computers and created by engineering minds. But they’re also highly emotive objects, and our bicycle-related decisions aren’t always solely rooted in logic.

I first threw a leg over this Routt RSL when I attended the Moots Ranch Rally, an 80km (50-mile) non-competitive event in Steamboat Springs held almost entirely on idyllic dirt and gravel farming and ranch roads. I remember being surprised at how sporty the bike felt, and amazed at how comfortable it was. I rolled back into Moots HQ at the end of that ride feeling nearly as fresh as when I started, and it was honestly one of the best days I’d ever had on a bike.

If I had the money, I would own this bike right now.

Somehow, I’ve experienced little snippets of that day’s sensation almost every time I’ve ridden this bike since then — that feeling of gliding effortlessly across washboarded dirt, the glee of sliding through slippery turns, that weird way the bike just rockets forward when I will it to do so. What has most often come to mind when I’ve ridden this bike is not what the bike does, but how it makes me feel, and I’m not sure there’s a higher praise I can give.

The Moots Routt RSL is anything but cheap, but I’d argue that it’s far from a bad value. It’s among the best-riding and performing gravel bikes I’ve ridden, it should be laughably durable, and it’s impeccably constructed. Everything on it — from the bottom bracket threads to the rear brake tabs to the dropout alignment — is utterly perfect. It’s a forever bike in the truest sense, and amortized over that kind of time, even this bike’s asking price suddenly seems almost reasonable.

Unfortunately, the reality is that a bike like this is still well outside of my reach, and the months-long dream has just recently ended, as the bike is now on its way back to Moots HQ. But as with all of our fondest dreams, the memories of this one will stay with me for a long while.

Farewell, Routt RSL. I’ll miss you dearly.

www.moots.com

The Routt RSL can handle dirt and gravel roads, paved roads, and even moderate singletrack with ease and grace. It’s a quiet performer that simply goes about its business.

This media blasted finish is arguably the most subtle option available; plenty of color anodized treatments are offered as well.

Down below is a traditional threaded bottom bracket. Not surprisingly, it never uttered a peep throughout months of testing in a variety of conditions.

The large-diameter seatstays and wishbone configuration shouldn’t make for a particularly supple ride, but it somehow delivers it, anyway.

My only complaint with the printed dropouts is that their surface finish doesn’t quite match the rest of the frame.

The printed-in Mr. Moots logo is a neat touch.

The aluminum rear derailleur hanger is reassuringly beefy.

A fender mount is incorporated into the underside of the wishbone.

My Routt RSL tester includes the optional internal rear brake hose routing. It unfortunately isn’t fully guided from end to end, though.

After the internally routed rear brake hose pops out of the underside of the down tube, it then makes its way back to the caliper through tidy barrel-shaped guides with no zip-ties required.

It’s a small detail, but one worth noting regardless. Any titanium frame worth buying should have properly welded-on bottle bosses, not rivnuts.

Tire clearance through the Moots carbon fork is very generous. A 35mm-wide Schwalbe G-One is shown here, but there’s ample space for a 40mm tire, too.

Clearance at the chainstays is similarly generous, too.

The SRAM Red eTap battery is a common pinch point with it comes to gravel bikes. There’s little chance of even a 40mm-wide tire coming into contact with the battery, at least on this frame, but it does make for a prime spot for mud to collect.

There’s ample room up here, too.

The made-for-Moots carbon fork is unfortunately only offered in a single 47mm rake. It works well in the 52cm frame size I rode for this review, but I can’t say how well it’d work at the extremes of the size range.

Fender mounts are neatly tucked away down by the fork tips.

The head on the Moots seatpost is particularly clever. The 6mm fitting on the outside loosens the rails for fore-aft adjustment, but a 5mm fitting inside the first one is used to independently adjust the tilt. Such cylindrical designs are still sometimes prone to slipping under particularly heavy loads, though.

If you’re into the look of welded titanium, there’s a lot to like here.

Moots machines its aluminum parts in-house, such as seatpost clamps, stem faceplates, and other bits.

Over the years, Mr. Moots has become as integral a part of the company as the bikes themselves.

The R45 hubs don’t have quite the engagement speed of Chris King’s mountain bike models, but it’s not really a big deal in this application. Most riders will prefer the more subdued sound and lower friction, anyway.

The SRAM XG-1190 11-32T cassette is matched to a mid-length SRAM Red eTap rear derailleur. On the road, dirt, or trail, the combination performed flawlessly. But do you know what would make it even better? A clutched pulley cage. Stay tuned for 2019…

I still think there’s room for improvement on SRAM’s top-shelf Red eTap groupset, but I have no complaints whatsoever with the one-button-per-side shifting style or how well the hydraulic disc brakes work. The latter is arguably the best in the business right now.

I’d also like to see SRAM offer a sub-compact chainring setup that’s better suited to gravel bikes.

The Moots bar tape is a nice touch – and the Zevlin tape itself is quite good, too, with pleasantly firm padding and good grip.

The post Moots Routt RSL long-term review: The titanium gravel forever bike, perfected appeared first on CyclingTips.

Used for stripping the grit, grime and grease from a well-pedalled drivetrain, degreaser is a staple chemical of any keen cyclist’s maintenance kit. However, unlike the endless marketing propaganda that follows chain lube selection; degreaser is left in the corner, a dirty product that few brands actively promote. So which is best? It’s a question tech writer Dave Rome sought to answer..

As dish soap is to dishes, degreaser is the secret sauce in achieving a clean drivetrain.

If you’ve let your chain run feral and it’s not something you’d want to touch, it’s time for the degreaser. I set out to evaluate degreasers based on three parameters: efficient grease removal, human safety, and environmental safety. I then looked at different degreasing methods, from brushing it straight on the chain to obsessive ultrasonic cleaning, as these methods all call for different products.

If you simply want to know the best degreaser for general cleaning, I can strongly recommend Pedro’s Pig Juice. And the best way to avoid the regular need for degreaser in the first place is by selecting a great chain lube.

Degreaser basics

Degreasers are chemicals designed to break down oils and grease that are resistant to water. Most degreasers are alkaline in nature (high PH) and use solvent agents, often petrochemical or alcohol based. Other degreasers will be acidic (low PH), such as those which use natural citrus acids. While less common, there are more neutral degreasers free of solvents, such as water or plant-based cleaners.

Whole bike washes or cleaners, such as the pink stuff from Muc-Off, will have some mild degreasing capability but are not intended to strip oils and grease like a true degreaser. If you’re going to the trouble of degreasing your drivetrain, pick the right tool.

This test is by no means exhaustive, but it should give you valuable information in choosing a good degreaser.

With hundreds of different degreasing products on the market, testing them all just isn’t plausible. To narrow the field, I reached out to select members of our team along with a few career pro mechanics and industry experts who have honed their craft over the years and asked for what they’ve found to be best.

From there, I took a number of those suggestions and put them to the test. I looked at which degreasers broke down the grime of a filthy chain with little manual input. And then I tested to see which of these degreasers would kill grass, a reasonable stand-in for environmental safety.

Bio-degradable does not make it safe

Speaking with Jason Smith, formerly of Friction Facts and now CeramicSpeed, the degreaser market is rife with confusing and misleading statements. As Smith points out, many degreasers are sold on the idea of being non-toxic and/or biodegradable, but those two things are not the same.

An item may biodegrade, but it can still be toxic to its user and the environment. Additionally, the term “organic” in relation to degreasers doesn’t mean much. For example, Benzene is an organic compound and also a known carcinogenic. Similarly, don’t assume a “non-hazardous” sticker makes it safe, this classification is typically used in order to save on transport costs.

Not all degreasers should be used in the same manner.

A whole feature could be written on this aspect, but in short, if you’re likely to wash your bike anywhere near nature or near drains, then look for something that is marketed as both non-toxic and bio-degradable. If the chemicals you’re using don’t offer such claims, then seriously consider wearing gloves, be aware that the fumes can be toxic, and dispose of the chemicals responsibly (most councils offer dangerous waste disposal free of charge).

Bicycles have unique needs

Most industrial environments choose heavy and often unhealthy alkine solvent degreasers for grease-cutting efficiency and with little regard to other factors. However, for bicycles, degreaser is often used where braking surfaces, rubber seals, anodised components, greased bearings and delicate paint are within dripping distance. These unique demands often require a chemical that won’t cause more harm than good. However, knowing what that is can be tough.

Morgan Blue’s Chain Cleaner is a popular product, but its Naphtha base should be treated with care.

“The fastest and most efficient chain degreasers found in local bike shops contain the heavy petroleum/hydrocarbon derivatives. Most degreasers of this type contain heptane, acetone, naphtha, and/or alcohols. These solvents are very aggressive when it comes to dissolving chain lubricants and the contaminants adhering to the lubricant. Some examples of these hydrocarbon-based degreasers are Finish Line Speed Degreaser (Heptane, Acetone, Ethanol), White Lightning Clean Streak (Naphtha, Heptane), Morgan Blue Chain Cleaner (Naphtha), and Muc Off Dry Chain Degreaser (Naphtha). Naphtha is a slightly more volatile version of mineral spirits,” explains Jason Smith.

“Most heavy hydrocarbon solvents can damage bike frame paint finishes. They do a great job dissolving the chain greases, and also paint. Naphtha [as is Mineral Turpentine] is commonly found as a paint thinner in hardware stores. The chances are that an alternative solvent is easier on paint finishes.”

Simple Green is a popular pick, but a number of companies suggest it can be damaging to finishes.

Non-toxic chemicals aren’t in the clear, either. Simple Green degreaser is a common go-to, and is made more popular by the fact that it is readily available in bulk. However, its potent citrus-base is known to fade anodising, something Chris King Components specifically warns against. Similarly, Shimano and Campagnolo have (quietly) warned against using such degreasers as it can attack the low-friction coatings found on premium chains.

The main lesson here is that most degreasers on the market have the potential to cause finish or component damage if misused. Washing your freshly cleaned components with water is a good way to prevent issues, as is avoiding products made for industrial applications.

The best drivetrain degreasers

I tested a small handful of popular degreasers with segments from the same disgustingly dirty chain, letting them sit for an hour with occasional agitation before rinsing with water. I also tested them undiluted on grass (30ml of each). The outcomes of these tests are based purely on qualitative results, such as visual cleanliness, perceived grittiness of the chain and how brown the grass went.

Do take these non-scientific results with a greasy grain of grit as I found some degreasers really showed their strength once agitation and/or water was added to the mix. For example, Pedro’s Degreaser 13 is basically an undiluted version of the company’s Pig Juice, and yet, it’s thick viscosity meant it didn’t fare so well in my stationary test, whereas Pig Juice cut through more efficiently, and really showed promise once rinsed off. In the case of both of these non-toxic products, the degreasers work by cutting down to the metal and containing the oils, while adding water acts somewhat like the solvent and draws away the mess. In most cases, degreasers don’t work so well without water to wash away the mess.

Of the degreasers tested, Morgan Blue Chain Cleaner, Finish Line Citrus, Pedro’s Pig Juice and Smoove Prep all offered a finish that was satisfactorily clean. The Morgan Blue left a dull residue on the metal (and contains Naphta), while the other three Citrus-based cleaners left a brighter finish.

In this chart, each scale is from one to five. Five is better — more clean, and less dead grass.

Does it clean grease, is it a safe on other components and will it kill the earth? There aren’t too many other questions to ask.

As you can see, Pedro’s Pig Juice is both very effective and left our grass unscathed.

Smoove Prep was the absolute best with a near spotless chain and no noticeable residue. This combination degreaser and soap-based cleaner is designed to not leave any oily residue and allow for a good application of the wax-based Smoove chain lube. However, it’s not the most eco-friendly option and while you don’t need to use much of it, it’s sold in a relatively tiny bottle.

Certainly, the results prove that Pedro’s Pig Juice is worth its reputation. Not only is it safe to use, it does an impressive job of cutting through tough grime. However, it’s also not cheap and so diluting Pedro’s Degreaser 13 may produce an even better value, albeit more laborious, option.

According to Jay Seiter of Pedro’s, the staff uses a mixture of both Pig Juice and Degreaser 13 wherever possible. The Pig Juice was initially intended as a ready-to-pour degreaser for use inside their Chain Pig chain cleaner, while the more viscous Degreaser 13 offers more power and sticks without dripping. “Apply Degreaser 13 to the cassette and chainrings using the Toothbrush. Then run Pig Juice in the Chain Pig (chain cleaning device) on the chain, rinse the Chain Pig out, and run it again filled with water. Next add a little water to the brush bristles and quickly scrub at the cassette and chainrings to further activate the Degreaser 13. Finally, give everything a rinse with water and dry with rag.” I can attest that this results in a stunningly bright drivetrain.

Our favourites

What do we use? Our global tech editor James Huang has been using Pedro’s Pig Juice to do on-bike cleans. He says it “smells nice, supposedly won’t kill me, and works well.” Our founder Wade Wallace hasn’t changed his opinion in nearly a decade, “Baby wipes for quick clean and Park Tool citrus degreaser for a real clean.”

Jay SyCip, design manager at Chris King is another proponent for Pedro’s Pig Juice. He says his company chooses it because it’s milder on components than many other options. And according to Pedro’s, this is because it’s a “solvent-free” product (as is Degreaser 13).

Speaking with Win Allen, a pro race mechanic and owner of Win’s Wheels, he shares a similar opinion in using a degreaser that’s environmentally safe. “If I’m working on grass, I never want anyone to be able to tell I was working there. As part of Pedro’s testing to show how safe/eco-friendly the Degreaser 13 was, it was poured directly on a patch of grass, it never harmed that grass, that’s what I’ve used since.” Interestingly, my grass testing showed differently, and while Pedro’s Pig Juice caused no harm, 30ml of undiluted Degreaser 13 led to some browning.

Shimano officially recommends the use of dish soap and warm water, a cheap, safe and well-proven method. While dish soap is perfect for cleaning a lightly soiled chain, you’ll quickly see it beaten by more stubborn grime.

Personally, I was always a little less loyal to a specific product and have found cleaning success with most bike-specific degreasers on the market. My experience is similar to Jason Smith’s, in that the stuff that cuts the grease the fastest is often the stuff you want to avoid using.

The best on test. Smoove Prep is potent stuff and so this small bottle will do ten washes.

Degreasing methods

Following the ultimate guide to chain cleaning, your choice of degreaser should match your chosen cleaning method.

The Lube/Rag/Wipe

On a scale from five (clean) to zero (greasy mess), this method gets you to around a two.

Simply using a rag and lube, the lazy method is more about prevention than it is about cleaning. For this method, the suggestion is not to use any chemicals other than the lube. Dripping on fresh lube will loosen grease and allow for manual rag cleaning. If you must spray on something, look for a chemical that dries without residue, bicycle disc brake cleaner or similar is popular in this situation.

On-bike degreasing

This clean involves using either a brush and/or chain cleaning device along with degreaser and water (and a chain keeper). As the chain is being cleaned on the bike, you want a degreaser that’s safe on finishes. Likewise, you don’t want a degreaser that will aggressively attack the rubber seals in your bottom bracket or pulley wheels. And most importantly, it’s likely you’ll be doing the clean over grass or near a drain, and so you want a solution that’s environmentally safe – your bike isn’t worth dead marine life.

Certainly, there’s a long list of petroleum-based degreasers that work extremely well, but please consider the environmental impact for where you’ll be using them.

Chemicals for a Thorough clean

This is the method that ensures a pro-level clean where parts will look new afterward. To achieve this, the parts are typically removed from the bike and cleaned separately. The use of an ultrasonic cleaner has become popular, but it can also be done with a simple container, bucket or similar method of holding degreaser.

Given you’ll be removing the parts, there’s more freedom in the chemicals you can use. And while typically more expensive than mainstream chemicals, the degreasers suggested above will work perfectly too.

Mineral Turpentine will certainly get your chain clean, but this stuff is no joke. It ate the plastic test cup before it dissolved the chain grease. No other product tested did this.

So what are mainstream chemical options? One example is Mineral turpentine as used by our Australian tech editor, Matt Wikstrom. “No fuss, never fail”, tells Wikstrom. Though do be warned, Mineral turpentine, or “turps”, is often also sold as paint thinner and so should be used carefully around painted surfaces and handled with extreme care – it’s poisonous.

Personally, I’ve long used low-odor kerosene (Naphtha-based, toxic) in my parts washer. Being a petrochemical, like turps, you need to be aware that’s it’s highly flammable, not good for skin contact and needs to be washed off the part thoroughly. Otherwise, it’s an effective cleaner that I’ve found to be less aggressive than other popular petrochemical-based degreasers. And assuming you have a sealed washer to keep it in, it’ll last for years before requiring disposal.

When not using Pedro’s Pig Juice for on-bike cleans, James Huang uses a safer, aluminum-friendly version of Simple Green and does so in a large ultra-sonic cleaner.

With a successful service business, Win Allen’s workshop is fitted with a premium electric heated parts washer (SmartWasher SW-23). “The degreaser is heated, which makes getting any brand of chain lube or bearing grease off very easy. In it is Ozzy Juicy SW-4, the most powerful degreaser that is safe on all materials.” What makes this product so unique is that it’s bioremediating, it effectively breaks down contaminates itself.

Jay Sycip says they use a similar thing at Chris King’s headquarters, with a Simple Kleen parts washer as the pick for the eco-sensitive company.

Whatever chemical you choose, you’ll need to wash it off afterward. For example, Win finishes his process by flushing the components in a large ultrasonic cleaner with heavily diluted Dawn dish soap – something that’s eco-friendly and safe on parts.

Obsessively clean chemicals

The methods above will get a drivetrain impressively clean, but there’s a step further for those looking to do submersion chain waxing or use an ultra-fast wax lube where a residue-free, bare-metal finish is required. This obsessive level of detail will only apply to a very small segment and it’s only relevant to the chain, other drivetrain components will be clean enough with the methods already covered.

Ultra Sonic cleaners can be picked up online for reasonable money. However, they’re not required for getting a chain obsessively clean.

Jason Smith, the original creator of the Molten Speed Wax recipe, details his methods. “If I need to get a chain stripped and sterile, for, say, cleaning chains between lube tests where every bit of the previously applied lubricant has to be removed, I use Ultrasonic cleaners and heavy hydrocarbon/petroleum-based solvents. Specifically, multiple baths of odorless mineral spirits (OMS) and then follow that up with an alcohol or lacquer thinner bath. The OMS does a great job dissolving any pre-existing coatings, lubes or contamination. The alcohol or thinner then acts to remove any residual film left over by the mineral spirits. But this is in the lab and not really suitable for home use.”

Personally, I do the steps detailed in the thorough process (including something similar to Win’s ultrasonic cleaner flush), and then finish it off with the chain shaken in a jar of methylated spirits. This is a proven method to get a chain ready for its initial submersion waxing (boiling water works to clean off the wax from then on).

Still with me?

I never used to stress about what was in my cleaning chemicals and only recently have I started to pick products with low or no toxicity. Given this, brands such as Pedro’s and Green Oil (not tested) should be applauded, and at least for the former, it seemingly works every bit as well as more potent products.

Jason Quade, a former pro race mechanic and owner of Abbey Bike Tools summarises degreaser choice well. “The more careful you are about putting the lube on and what lube you use, the lazier you can be in taking it off.”

If you carefully consider your lube choice, how much of it you use and how well you wipe off the excess, you’ll only rarely (if ever) need to use degreaser, and when you do, you’ve got plenty of options. But whatever you choose, consider the seals in your bearings and those in the ocean.

The post The best degreaser: cleanliness made safe and easy appeared first on CyclingTips.

The Bontrager Ballista road shoes are undeniably sleek, what with their ultra-smooth exterior and simple rear-mounted single Boa cable reels. But does such a streamlined approach still yield the necessary fit and performance? “Almost,” says CyclingTips global technical editor James Huang.

Bontrager first debuted the Ballista name on its premier aero road helmet, but it’s now applied the moniker to a pair of similarly speedy-looking road shoes, apparently as part of a greater plan to craft a whole family of Ballista products focused on aerodynamic efficiency. With the new Ballista road shoes, Bontrager wanted to retain the convenience of Boa cable reels — seemingly a necessity when it comes to high-end cycling footwear these days — but in a form factor more reminiscent of classically styled lace-ups.

What results is a single Boa dial mounted to the heel of a nearly seamless microfiber upper that is otherwise devoid of extraneous hardware; even the wire guides are made of fabric so as to not create any unnecessary pressure points. Bontrager claims that single Boa dial — there are no other closure mechanisms — is enough to provide a secure hold, thanks in part to the way the cable wraps around the ankle in addition to across the top of your foot.

The rear-mounted Boa dial is unusual, although not entirely unique.

Down below is a carbon fiber sole plate (ranking 12/14 on Bontrager’s stiffness scale) with vents under the toes and midfoot, a replaceable heel tread, and standard three-bolt cleat drilling.

Fit-wise, Bontrager builds the Ballista with its most aggressive inForm Pro last for a snug hold, while the standard insole sports a modest bump under your toes and a bit of arch support to supplemental the built-in shaping in the carbon plate.

The Boa line zig-zags across the top of the shoe, instead of taking a criss-cross pattern like traditional laces.

Bontrager supplied my set in the impossible-to-miss Ballista LTD version, finished in a “Radioactive Yellow” high-visibility hue, plus a smattering of reflective elements to help keep you conspicuous day or night. More conventional color options are available as well, including black, white, and red.

Actual weight for my size 43 test shoes is 472g per pair, including insoles. Retail price for the Ballista LTD is US$300 / AU$350 / £200 / €300.

Long on promise, but a touch short on delivery

First impressions were very favorable for the Bontrager Ballista shoes.

As expected, the single Boa dial is convenient to use. The heel-mounted location is a bit awkward to grab until you get used to it, but the format certainly does streamline things somewhat. And I continue to have nothing but praise for this particular Boa IP1 dial model. The dual-direction micro-adjustability and handy pull-to-release exit strategy are excellent.

Aside from the single stitch at the heel, there are no seams in the upper at all.

I can’t deny the clean looks that design produces, too. As someone who very much buys into the aesthetics of lace-ups, these Ballista shoes tick a lot of boxes for me. Lace-up styling with Boa convenience? Sign me up.

But unfortunately, I didn’t find the system to work all that well.

I’ve always found that, with the best cycling shoes I’ve used, tightening the closure devices should snug up everything behind the toe box evenly, almost as if your foot was stuck inside a plastic bag as someone was drawing a vacuum. And accordingly, Bontrager claims the Ballista’s “Heel Reel” lacing design “draws [your] foot down and back to create a secure heel lock for a more efficient pedal stroke.”

The generous array of perforations makes for a pretty well ventilated shoe.

However, I found that tightening the Boa dial on the Ballista just creates more pressure on top of the foot instead of tightening up everything, and even when things are cranked down tight, there’s noticeable heel lift. Instead of that shrink-wrapped feel I seek in cycling shoes, it felt more like someone was just stepping on my feet. As a result, I was never able to get the Ballistas as tight as I wanted without creating some unwanted discomfort.

From what I can tell, part of the issue is that the uppers are much more pliable over the top of your foot than around the ankle area. Moreover, the heel cup itself strikes me as a bit wider and shallower than I’d typically prefer. But that said, the way the Ballistas tighten up perhaps highlights even more the inherent limitations of using a single closure in terms of being able to choose where the shoe is tight, and where it’s a little more relaxed.

“Cat’s tongue” material is used to line the heel to help hold your foot in place. I’ve found in the past, however, that that sort of thing isn’t necessary if the heel cup is more aggressively shaped.

Fit-wise, the Ballistas are similar to other Bontrager shoes made with the company’s inForm Pro last, which is to say that they’re fairly roomy throughout with a moderately tapered toe box. The upper materials are admirably soft and supple, although riders with any sort of anomalies will want to note that they don’t stretch much at all. Arch support is modest, and should suit riders with both flat feet and high arches, perhaps with a little insole customization required.

Otherwise, the rest of the shoe is about what you’d expect. The carbon sole is very stiff, the shoe is reasonably well ventilated overall, and the materials seems fairly durable. Cleat placement seems spot-on to me for neutral positioning, too, and I like that the heel tread is replaceable.

The fabric wire guides don’t create any hot spots on the top of your foot.

Overall, I found myself feeling a little let-down by the Ballistas. The design is very promising, and my guess is that most riders will find the clean aesthetic to be quite agreeable. But even so, I think Bontrager needs to do a bit more work to improve the heel hold. The rear-mounted Boa concept seems to hold merit — it worked in the past for Lake, for example — but as it stands currently, it feels like it could use some refinement (either in the lacing design or the heel cup shape) to make the Ballistas truly competitive with other top options in the segment.

www.bontrager.com

The inForm Pro last is shared with Bontrager’s XXX and Velocis models. They’re fairly roomy through the middle and rear of the shoes, with a moderately tapered toe box.

The vented OCLV carbon sole is as stiff as you’d expect from a high-end road shoe, but the colored accents are a nice touch.

The LTD version of the Ballista is finished in a high-visibility yellow, and all of the black sections at the back of the shoe are reflective.

A modest amount of arch support is built right into the carbon sole.

The post Bontrager Ballista shoe review: The look of laces; the convenience of Boa appeared first on CyclingTips.

“Those are some Giant shoes.” So said yet another random cyclist in passing. It was a common pun, and one I’d made myself far too many times.

Like Specialized, Bontrager (Trek), and Scott, Giant has thrown its weight into components and accessories in recent years. Such a move is obviously intended to provide Giant’s dealers with a complete product range (and to capture more of those dealers’ dollars), but a move to being a full-service brand is never easy. And in a market as competitive as premium road cycling shoes, Giant has had to work in order to produce something that deserves its place.

For 2019, Giant overhauled its flagship shoe, the Surge Pro, which we first saw on the feet of riders at the 2018 Santos Tour Down Under. Both James Huang and I have had our feet in the new Surge Pros for a number of months, and with a novel sole design and a unique upper, it’s certainly a shoe worth discussing.

Fully featured

Throughout the three tiers of Giant’s Surge range of premium road shoes, there are two common themes, which Giant has dubbed ExoBeam and ExoWrap.

Take a look underneath the Surge Pro and you’ll immediately see one major point of difference. Instead of going for ultimate bending and torsional stiffness, Giant’s one-piece ExoBeam carbon sole is wide at either end, but very thin at the midfoot. The design theory is that your foot shouldn’t be locked to the pedal in a fixed plane, and that naturally, your ankle should move somewhat independent of the ball of your foot. The beam-like shape is meant to remain rigid along its length, but allow some controlled torsional flex between the forefoot and heel, which then naturally leads to the lower leg and knee, too.

A unique sole calls for a unique upper.

With the sole all but missing in the middle of the shoe, Giant instead relies on the upper to provide arch support. Here, Giant’s ExoWrap design uses a separated middle strap stemming from the base of the upper, which is intended to pull and hold the arch up as the shoe is tightened.

In the case of the Surge Pros, the upper is made with a stretch-resistant non-woven synthetic leather with mostly welded seams (there are still a handful of stitches). All told, the shoe boasts a competitive 5.5mm claimed stack height figure.

The Boa dials are nice to see here.

Retention is handled by two micro-adjust Boa dials, with the lower wire looping through a Boa PowerZone arrangement for adjustable retention at the ball of the foot. It’s almost an identical system to what Shimano uses on its S-Phyre footwear range, among other popular shoes, and offers easy dual-direction adjustment and instant release.

Lining the heel is a one-way gripper material, which looks and feels like a cat’s tongue to help grab the back of your socks. The heel and surrounding edges are padded, adding shape to the heel counter.

The removable innersole is similar to many other premium shoes, being made of a lightweight and supportive material, and offering adjustable arch support through interchangeable foam wedges.

Two different fits depending on region

Giant offer the Surge Pro in a High Volume (HV) or a narrower “Competition” fit, but what is available to you is dependent on your region. In Australia, only the High Volume fit is available (which is what I tested), while in the USA, only the narrower Competition fit is for sale (which is what James tested). This decision remains bewildering to us, especially as the information seems somewhat brushed under the rug.

According to Ben Johnson, Giant Australia’s gear product manager, the two shoes are technically the same width, and in many ways, the difference in fit is marginal.

“Both the High Volume and Competition fit options utilise the same MES 2.0 plate design and dimensions,” he explained. “The difference comes with the volume in the construction of the upper through the toe box and mid foot area.”

According to Johnson, the heel shape stays constant between the two fits, too.

The sole remains the same between the two fits; it’s the amount of material on top that changes.

“Due to the unique MES design with the ExoBeam plate and ExoWrap upper construction, adding slightly more height and material to the upper translates to a wider feeling fit,” he continued. “The way in which ExoWrap works to create a 360-degree wrap around the midfoot as you tighten allows for a more forgiving fit for people with broader feet in the High Volume fit option.”

Of course, with us having tested two marginally different fits, James and I had varying experiences, but mostly found common ground. As you’ll read, my fit experiences weren’t all that positive, while James found fewer issues. Whether my issues were a cause of the High Volume shoe remains unknown, so as usual, the best advice I can give is to try before you buy.

What’s a shoe without sole?

Slipping on the Surge Pros reveals a fit that’s on the wide-side of race shoes, and even James remarked as such for his “Competition fit” version. The general shape seems fairly comparable to Shimano, with the fit sitting somewhere between the Shimano RC9 and RC7s I also just reviewed.

Compared to a more traditional shoe, the sole design means there’s a complete lack of rigid arch support.

The Surge Pros certainly offer that intended sense of freedom between the heel and where the cleat sits. It’s a relaxed feeling of comfort and one that arguably eases the role the knee plays for those with lower leg stability issues. However, while the ExoBeam carbon sole may be partly responsible for it, both James and I believe the bulk of the subtle twisting is from the unsupported upper and gentle heel hold.

As a race shoe, you expect a certain level of rigidity and secureness, but the heel of these just feels a little more casual. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for everyone, and for example, to my liking, Shimano’s race shoes are noticeably more relaxed than Specialized’s, with Giant more relaxed and wider again.

The grippy material and padding at the heel stop the gentle hold from feeling too loose, and, of course, the shoe can be cranked snug to further secure the foot. If you often find cycling shoes too narrow at the heel, you may just find true love here.

The middle strap is visually separate from the upper, but in practice, it doesn’t seem to do much on its own.

Giant says that the ExoWrap design offers superior arch support thanks to its separated middle strap (which is something Fizik also claims with its Dynamic Arch Support concept). But in reality, it’s more of a visual difference rather than a tangible one (just like James noticed on the Fizik shoes he’s tested), and the concept only just manages to meet expectation. Tightening the lower Boa certainly pulls this strap upward, but without a sole to provide support, that strap has to hold some serious force on its own, and you can see it straining when putting down power. James even tried his trusty Solestar inserts but still wanted more support.

That said, jumping out the saddle still reminds you that these are shoes built for racing. The carbon sole is acceptably stiff along its length, but not class-leading. And while it’s a function of design, the ExoBeam feature had James wishing for a little more torsional stability.

Despite a general wide fit, the toe box tapers a little too suddenly, and slightly cramps my pinky toes. It’s a similar issue I had with the Louis Garneau Air Lite II shoes. Interestingly, James also tested the Garneaus, and like the Surge Pros, found no such issue. It’s an issue I felt straight away, so if trying them on reveals no cramped feeling, you’re likely in the clear.

For all the comfort the Surge Pros offer, I was distracted by the raised section that surrounds the upper Boa guide (opposite to the dials). This inside edge poked directly into the crevice of my ankle, and I’d feel it any time I’d drop my heels. The shoes broke in with time, though, and this slowly morphed from a cause of pain to a simple nuisance. I complained of similar issue with the Shimano RC7 shoes, so I certainly have a low volume foot that puts my ankles in the firing line, but the Surge Pros are the worst offenders I’ve tried in recent time.

Unfortunately, I don’t know whether this is specific to my High Volume version or not. James found no such issue, but then again, his narrower Competition fit have less material to wrap around the foot.

Similarly, the plastic Boa “Powerzone” guides just above the toe box sat just above my big toe’s joint, and I could feel it through the upper when tight. Loosening the shoe all but solves the issue, but the generally soft upper and hold had me wanting to run the shoes tighter. When snugging down the shoes, both James and I experienced wrinkling that ran from the lowest Boa loops and over the toes.

Crank these up and you’ll see the upper crease from the lowest guide points.

That desire to crank down the shoes is something James remarked on as well.

“The best shoes I’ve used feel like they’re shrink-wrapped around my feet: heel and midfoot,” he said. “When I tighten down the Surge Pro, I feel like someone is stepping on my feet.”

The vent at the sole isn’t as effective as it looks.

The Surge Pros offer reasonable ventilation with plenty of laser-cut perforations throughout the upper. However, while the sole may offer one large vent, it’s all but closed off to the wind with only two small passage holes existing in the lasting board within. They’re not a breezy shoe, but they stave off feeling clammy just fine.

Out back, the heel pad is sufficiently wide and there are no stability or traction issues when walking in the Surge Pros. However, that rubber gripper is claimed to be replaceable, but the access bolt is covered by the upper liner from within. Hacking at it with a knife revealed a steel bolt, but gosh, destroying the inside of the shoe to refresh the outside seems like a flaw.

Available in either black or white, the logos on the Surge Pro are subdued, with the single “Giant” branding on the outside of the heel doubling for reflective purposes. The somewhat matte finish of my white samples showed dirt more readily than other white shoes I’ve tested in recent time, and anecdotally, seemed to scuff more easily, too. The finish around the toe is also somewhat wrinkled and a little unexpected for a shoe at this price, although to be fair, in no way does it impact the function.

Looking longer term, the abbreviated sole design leaves much of the synthetic upper unprotected, and so beware if you’re prone to a little off-road treatment with your precious white road shoes.

Premium race footwear is a tough market

No matter the price, there is no shortage of options for quality road shoes. Certainly, shoes are personal, but it seems where Giant’s design perhaps solves one problem, it creates others.

Giant certainly deserves credit for doing things differently and the Surge Pros offer a uniquely relaxed and comfortable fit for a premium race shoe. Whether it’s right for you is tough to say, but if you often find yourself wanting a wider and more forgiving heel, or a performance shoe that just typically feels less restrictive, then certainly try a pair of these on.

Somewhat unusually, at US$404 / AU$400 these are substantially cheaper in Australia than they are in North America. The Australian suggested retail pricing puts them a little below the likes of the Shimano S-Phyre and a good $100 less than the Specialized S-Works 7: a fair place to be. However, the higher US pricing makes them tougher to recommend.

All up, I could wear these without major complaint, but based purely on a few fitting and finish quirks, I wouldn’t choose them ahead of more established options. James and I both agree that while the Surge Pros are on-par with the competition in some respects, they still don’t have any significant advantages to set them apart from the crowd.

Gallery

The upper is stitched together and then bonded to the sole.

The 2019 Surge Pro shoes are interesting shoes, but they fail to offer anything truly special over top competitors.

Our white samples showed scuffing fairly quickly (which obviously wouldn’t be an issue with the black option).

The heel is lined with a special gripping fabric. It’s used by other shoe brands and for good reason.

The sole offers generous fore-aft cleat adjustment.

The heel pad is effective, but it’s not easy to replace by any measure.

The back of the Surge Pros show a fairly simple construction.

Two different arch support wedge sizes are included.

The Surge Pros include this classy carry bag.

It’s a Giant shoe box. [Editor’s note: Dave is paid by the pun.]

The post Giant Surge Pro road cycling shoe review: Kicks with a twist appeared first on CyclingTips.

At any given moment, I have a number of high-end road, gravel, and mountain bikes at my disposal. But here’s a secret: my favorite bike is my family e-cargo bike, purely because of the way it affects my day-to-day life.

And so it was with an unusual amount of enthusiasm that I greeted the Tern GSD, a clever e-cargo bike whose designers had seemingly thought of everything. I spent several months — and hundreds of kilometres — on it, and came away very impressed, but not quite 100% sold.

Every year at the Eurobike trade show, I’m asked the same question by industry friends and acquaintances in attendance: “What’s the coolest thing you saw at the show?” After nearly 14 years at this gig, usually the answer in my head is “Not much.” But at the 2017 show, one bike caught my eye in a big, big way, and I told everyone who would listen.

You see, I have a thing for cargo bikes, specifically the e-assist kind. Ever since spending a month (January, mind you, in Colorado) car-free on Trek’s Transport+ in 2011, I’ve been wholly sold on how much that sort of vehicle would impact my day-to-day life. After dabbling with a few more, I eventually bought my own e-cargo bike (a Yuba Spicy Curry) in 2016. Roughly 10,000 kilometers later, it’s arguably the most frequently used vehicle I own.

The Tern GSD is one of the most unique utility bike I’ve come across. Much of it is absolutely brilliant.

As much as my wife and I love it, though, it’s far from perfect. The Currie Tech mid-drive motor system is quirky, to put it mildly, the battery life isn’t great (especially with this many hours on the clock), and the long tail frame layout takes up a lot of room.

But this Tern … it seemed to be everything I was looking for. It was the first bike I’d genuinely lusted after in years.

Enticing specs, brilliant design

For as long as I can remember, I’ve admired things that are designed with space efficiency in mind, and this GSD ticked that box big-time. Tern is well-known for its expansive range of folding urban bikes, and the company utilized a lot of that experience for its first-ever cargo bike.

The compact aluminum frame is built around diminutive (but wide) 20in wheels and tires at both ends, which yield roughly the same wheelbase as more traditional cargo bikes, but an overall length nearly on-par with standard townies or cruisers. The folding stem and dual-stage telescoping seatpost quickly cut the height of the GSD almost in half so the whole thing can roll into the back of many SUVs. Standoffs at the rear of the frame allow the whole thing to rest vertically for storage.

When properly outfitted, the Tern GSD can carry a ridiculous amount of stuff.

Interestingly, Tern offers the GSD in a single size, claiming the telescoping seatpost and adjustable handlebar have enough range to accommodate rider heights from 1.50m to 1.95m (4ft 11in to 6ft 5in). That’s a big plus for families where multiple people are likely to be sharing the same bike.

The GSD may be highly space-efficient, but it still packs a big punch.

Tern quotes the maximum cargo capacity at a whopping 200kg — rider included — spread out between the expansive rear rack and optional bolt-on front rack. The rear rack accepts up to two of Yepp’s popular range of child seats, optional double-sized panniers each fit a pair of typical grocery store bags, and there’s also a wide range of other GSD-specific accessories to expand and tailor your hauling needs to suit.

The integrated rear rack is positively huge, with plenty of room for two baby seats. Tern also offers a big bolt-on parcel shelf if you’re mainly just carrying packages.

Want to carry two kids, or one baby and a toddler? No problem. Big boxes? Have at it. Tern even says you can give another adult a lift on the rear rack when properly equipped, and all of that cargo is positioned comparatively low to the ground, thanks to the 20in wheels.

Not that anyone riding a GSD has to push all of that mass using only their own quads, mind you; this is an e-bike, after all. Down below is a powerful and reliable Bosch Performance Line mid-drive motor (250W, 63Nm), whose generous range can be extended all the way to 250km (155 miles, claimed) with an optional second battery.

Tern equips the GSD with a smart build kit, too.

On my GSD S10 model, drivetrain duties are handled by Shimano’s workhorse Deore clutched rear derailleur and trigger shift, coupled to a 10-speed 11-36T cassette, and Magura supplies powerful four-piston MT5 disc brakes at both ends. The rolling stock is more interesting, built with thru-axle house-brand cartridge bearing hubs, 36mm-wide (external width) aluminum rims, but with an extra-wide 36mm internal width and meaty 2.4in-wide Schwalbe Moto Super-X reinforced semi-slick tires.

The 2.4in-wide tires offer plenty of grip, and the highly reinforced casings are impressively tough. The standard front and rear fenders are a nice touch.

If you’ve got a little more cash to burn, there’s also the more upscale GSD S00, which features a torquier Bosch Performance Line CX motor, an Enviolo continuously variable rear hub transmission, plus a pair of cargo panniers and a wheel lock stock (both of which are optional add-ons on the S10).

Either way, front and rear fenders come standard, as do front and rear lights, a bell, a chainguard, and a dual-leg kickstand.

Claimed weight for the stock setup with a single battery is 27.06kg (59.66lb); my sample with the dual-battery setup and a set of panniers is a hefty 33.79kg (74.50lb). Retail price for the standard GSD S10 configuration is US$4,000 / AU$6,650 / £4,000 / €4,100.

Getting things done

This was a somewhat unusual bike test for me, not so much for the three-month test period on the primary sample, but the fact that I also rode three different GSDs over a longer period of time: the extended-loan sample here at home, another company demo at the 2018 Sea Otter Classic, and yet another company demo at last year’s Eurobike trade show.

First, the good news.

Tern obviously makes some big claims when it comes to the GSD’s hauling capabilities, and I’m happy to say that they seem to bear out. Much of my time with the GSD was spent shuttling my 5yo daughter around town, often with varying amounts of groceries and other items. On another day, I did a 32km (20mi) round-trip to our local Costco warehouse store, returning with both panniers and my camera backpack loaded to capacity, and still had 4/5 bars remaining on the battery gauge despite the distance and nearly 300m (1000ft) of total climbing — and that was with the motor on the second-highest power setting.

The generous range makes the GSD useful for far more than just errands in town.

On one chilly day in December, I hauled a giant plastic bin full of our podcast gear 21km to Pearl Izumi’s headquarters and then another 21km back. I unfortunately had forgotten to charge the thing, so I started with barely 2/5 bars left on the battery meter. But even with all of that weight and 300m (1000ft) of total climbing that day, I still had (some) power to spare by the time I got back home.

For three consecutive days at the 2018 Sea Otter Classic, I used a different dual-battery GSD S10 for the 55km (34mi) round-trip to and from the Laguna Seca raceway, with panniers packed with my camera gear and a bunch of extra clothing (not just for me, but also for co-workers Caley Fretz and Neal Rogers). Even with 600m (2000ft) of climbing each day, I didn’t even bother to recharge the thing each evening, and still had plenty of battery power to spare.

As icing on the cake, I used a third GSD S10 to go back and forth from the Eurobike trade show to our condo — a mostly flat route covering about 23km (14mi) round-trip. On the last day, I shuttled all of my luggage (and all of packrat tech writer Dave Rome’s luggage) with ease.

Unlike Tern’s other folding bikes, the GSD doesn’t fold in half lengthwise. Instead, it collapses in height, which allows it to fit (upright!) inside many SUVs and vans.

And yes, I did even verify Tern’s claim that the GSD would fit inside a reasonably sized SUV. It was a tight fit, mind you, but with the stem folded down and the dual-stage telescoping seatpost crammed all the way into the frame, it was no problem rolling the bike into the back of a late-model Toyota Highlander.

By the time I finally had to give it back, I had ridden the GSD for roughly 650km (400mi) — not a huge number in terms of total distance, but about a hundred rides overall, and more than enough to get fully acquainted with its nuances.

Throughout it all, I never suffered a bit of range anxiety, and even had I had a single battery setup instead of the ultra-conservative dual-battery one, the GSD S10 would have easily suited my needs. I did notice some discrepancy between the claimed range and what was displayed on the Bosch computer, though.

There are four assist levels on tap here — Eco, Tour, Sport, and Turbo — but the biggest number I ever saw on the screen after a full charge was 212km (132mi). On Turbo mode, the claimed range was 76km (47mi). Those are still big, big numbers, but nevertheless a bit shy of the claimed figures.

Tern supplies the GSD with a single Bosch battery, but you can fit a second one if you need or want more range. Unless you’ve got a really long way to go, though, you’re unlikely to need to spend the money.

The standard Bosch Performance Line motor packed more than enough power, though, even heavily loaded on the 14% grade leading into the Sea Otter venue. And short of a couple of very minor complaints (such as the somewhat mushy shifter feel and minimally supportive saddle), the workhorse build kit was perfectly adequate.

For all intents and purposes, this worked nearly as well as my car for primary transportation, both in-town and elsewhere.

Flies in the ointment

I had high hopes of replacing my trusty Yuba with the GSD, and I went into the review fully anticipating that I’d end up asking the folks at Tern for an invoice instead of a return shipping label. But alas, there were a few things about the GSD that I just couldn’t quite get over — at least not enough to justify me making the switch.

First and foremost, the dual-20in wheel format is just plain odd in terms of handling. I’m a big fan of 20in rear wheels when it comes to cargo bikes, as it greatly lowers the center of gravity and helps keep the total overall length within reason. On the GSD, the small front wheel helps the bike feel remarkably nimble in urban situations, but it also feels pretty sketchy at more moderate speeds.

Despite the unsual appearance, the Tern Andros stem is very rigid with nary a hint of flex in the tall aluminum mast.

Despite the low-slung profile, frame stiffness doesn’t seem to be the issue here, as there’s ample reinforcement throughout. Based on previous experience with other Tern folding bikes, I blame the 20in front wheel. Stability just is not its forte, which is especially unnerving when your kid is riding out back.

Making matters worse, the GSD almost requires that you keep both hands on the bars, as you otherwise get some fairly serious speed wobble, even when the bike isn’t loaded.

I also took issue with the riding position. Personally, I found the seat tube angle to be a little too slack, and the cockpit length far too short. That sort of packaging undoubtedly helped Tern keep the GSD’s overall length within reason, but I would have happily traded that compactness for a longer and more stable-feeling front end.

Granted, it’s likely Tern chose to compromise the GSD’s dimensions in order to accommodate a wider range of rider heights, but at 1.73m (5ft 8in) tall, I’m about as average as can be, and the GSD just felt a little too small for comfort.

The dual-stage telescoping seatpost helps the Tern GSD supposedly accommodate rider heights from 1.50m to 1.95m (4ft 11in to 6ft 5in).

One other small thing: when compared to the GPS-based Wahoo ELEMNT Bolt, the Bosch computer consistently registered speeds that were about 1.5km/h (1mph) faster. Whether that had an impact on the stated range is unclear (not that it ever mattered, since the range was so generous already), but given that e-bike motors are generally required to cut out once they reach a certain speed, it was a little bit of a bummer to lose that assistance sooner than I should have.

Fantastic for urban settings, but compromised elsewhere

I couldn’t help but feel like the GSD was a little … confused. On the one hand, its compact size and nimble handling make it a joy in urban settings: it’s easy to maneuver, easy to park, easy to store. In many ways, I saw it as the two-wheeled equivalent of the classic European van in that it has a tidy footprint, but yet is still immensely capacious.

If you live in an apartment (and assuming you’ve got an elevator if you don’t live on the ground floor), or if space is generally at a premium, I can think of no other cargo bike I’d even remotely consider buying.

You might not be going all that fast on the Tern GSD on a regular basis, but depending on how you have it loaded up, it helps to have seriously strong brakes to bring all that mass to a stop.

That said, the GSD’s generous range and carrying capacity also make it well suited to longer trips where you might otherwise be tempted to use a car. But in those situations, I constantly found myself wishing I was on a bike with greater stability. Compact or not, that 20in front wheel is just too squirrelly for my liking, and I never grew accustomed to the nervous feel.

I really wanted to love you, GSD, but that initial lust I felt unfortunately faded into the reality that I just didn’t want to spend a lifetime together with you. Don’t feel bad; you’ve got so, so much to offer, and I’ve no doubt that there are plenty of people who will form a long and lasting relationship with you.

It’s not you, GSD, it’s me. Can we still be friends?

www.ternbicycles.com

Photo gallery

Whereas most cargo bikes opt for two standard-sized wheels, or maybe just one smaller wheel (depending on the format), the Tern GSD goes with 20in wheels front and rear. The concept offers advantages in terms of packaging, but definite disadvantages in terms of stability.

The small footprint and tremendous capability makes the GSD an easy pick for people living in urban environments where a more conventional cargo bike might be too cumbersome.

Suffice to say, the standard Bosch Performance Line mid-drive motor packs plenty of punch for most situations.

The low-slung frame makes for easy mounting and dismounting, yet overall frame stiffness seems surprisingly good thanks to the ample reinforcements.

The Bosch Performance Line mid-drive motor produces plenty of power and torque. But if you want more, the higher-end GSD S00 model includes an even torquier Bosch Performance Line CX motor. Aside from a bit of buzziness, the motor runs quietly and kicks in seamlessly.

The computer is easy to use and the display is highly legible.

The hinge mechanism is brilliantly designed, with an integrated safety lock and a rock-solid clamp.

Mounts on the head tube accept an optional front cargo rack if you need additional carrying capacity.

The bolt-on side rails help with parcels, and also serve as footrests if you’re carrying passengers.

Getting … things done.

Up top, double quick-releases and a neat pivot mechanism allow for some height, length, and angle adjustment to the bar and stem. It’s a system that was originally pioneered by German company Syntace.

The clamps conveniently leave space in between for an integrated front light. I would have liked to see a flashing setting, but you can only choose between a steady on and off. That said, it’s reasonably bright, at least for slower speeds.

The Tern Cargo Hold panniers are truly massive, and their squared-off shape makes that space extremely usable.

Most cargo bike panniers are basically just big bags. These are the first ones I’ve come across that have some shape and structure to them.

The 20in wheels also help keep the center of gravity of whatever you’re carrying on the GSD very low.

The optional side bars also lend some support to the bottom of the Cargo Hold Panniers.

Such a little widget might seem silly on a regular bike, but it’s quite handy to have the front wheel held steady when you’re loading things up.

Multiple anchor points allow you to adjust the bag to suit the contents.

The Shimano Deore clutched rear derailleur is a solid choice, providing reliable performance and excellent chain control.

The Magura MT5 levers are nicely shaped and feel reasonably firm in your fingers. Don’t get too excited about the brass bell; that’s a personal add-on.

The wheels may be small, but the tires are very wide and impressively fast-rolling – just the thing for urban use.

Tern specs thru-axle cartridge bearing hubs front and rear.

The stock pedals have lots of grip material on them, but they’re not all that grippy.

The Ergon grips look a little funny, but they’re actually very comfortable to hold.

Early examples of the Tern GSD included this dual-leg kickstand, which was woefully inadequate for the job. It’s thankfully been replaced with a different dual-leg design that’s far sturdier and more stable.

A small handle is molded into the back of the stock saddle for impromptu passengers. It’s minimal, but gets the job done (barely). The saddle itself doesn’t offer much support, though, and is best suited for short trips.

A single bottle mount is situated on the top tube.

The chain runs a little too close to the chainstay for comfort. It runs quietly most of the time but is still prone to rattling on rougher roads.

The post Tern GSD long-term review: Small in stature, big on capability appeared first on CyclingTips.

Without a doubt, SRAM’s new Red eTap AXS wireless road groupset will be talked about because of its move to a 12-speed cassette. Although the gearing philosophy plays a key role in the Chicago company’s flagship product, there are plenty of other notable changes, such as faster shifting, 1x or 2x drivetrain options, enhanced cross-compatibility with SRAM’s mountain bike components, improved lever feel, and newly customizable programming, all with the same convenient wireless format.

In fact, the new Red eTap AXS represents an improvement almost across the board relative to the original version — but one big issue will likely weigh heavily on the minds of hardcore users.

This article takes a deep dive into Red eTap AXS, but SRAM today unveiled the (wholly compatible) Eagle AXS wireless mountain bike drivetrain as well. For more information on that, check out Dave Rome’s article here.

The thinking behind 12-speed

I can hear the moans already: “Ugh, do we really need another gear back there?”

Well, no, of course not, but there’s some sound thinking behind SRAM’s decision to go to a 12-speed format with Red eTap AXS.

SRAM’s position with X-Range is that the way we all ride drop-bar bikes is very different than it was just a few years ago, and there’s a lot of merit to that argument. Sure, road racing bikes haven’t changed much, but the rest of the market has been undergoing a huge upheaval with the rise of gravel, adventure, and similar genres. But by and large, our gearing hasn’t kept up.

Having a hard time deciphering how SRAM’s new X-Range gearing options translate to conventional 11-speed ones? Here’s a handy visual. Photo: SRAM.

At least initially, Red eTap AXS will be offered with just three double chainring setups (50/37T, 48/35T, 46/33T) and three cassettes (10-26T, 10-28T, 10-33T), which might seem limiting until you crunch the numbers. None of the cassettes use an 11T sprocket to start.

That 10T sprocket might represent a single tooth on paper, but it makes a big difference in terms of total range. And by combining a wider-range, 12-speed cassette with narrower-range chainrings, SRAM contends that Red eTap AXS riders will not only have more usable gears to choose from, but will also enjoy smoother front shifting, less frequent front shifts overall, and smaller gaps between individual shifts.

In a first for SRAM’s electronic drivetrains, Red eTap AXS will also be available in 1x or 2x formats, with no changes required aside from the chainring itself. And even better, all of the new Red eTap AXS bits will also be compatible with SRAM’s equally new Eagle AXS wireless electronic mountain bike drivetrain bits, as well as the new RockShox Reverb AXS wireless electronic dropper seatpost, so buyers can feel free to mix and match as they wish.

Why go with 12 sprockets? Increased range is one reason; tighter gaps are another. With Red AXS, you seem to get both.

Naturally, though, there are some questions and caveats.

That new cassette will only fit on SRAM XDR freehub bodies, which are nearly identical to the popular XD standard but for about 2mm of additional width to accommodate the 12th sprocket. Thankfully, SRAM says that nearly every wheel company is already on board, and that most 11-speed wheels and hubs (save for Shimano, of course) can be retrofitted to suit.

SRAM is also only offering Red eTap AXS double chainrings in a snazzy one-piece machined aluminum unit. The consistent 13-tooth gaps and extremely rigid construction makes for far improved shifting, but replacement costs go up substantially as well, especially for power meter users (more on that below).

And what about drivetrain efficiency? Previous testing by Friction Facts founder Jason Smith (who is now the chief technology officer at CeramicSpeed) has shown that, all else being equal, smaller chainrings and cassette sprockets generate more drivetrain friction than larger ones. Nevertheless, SRAM contends that the drivetrain efficiency of Red eTap AXS is, overall, unchanged from the previous generation.

What’s up with that chain?

Part of that drivetrain efficiency trick is the new chain, whose conspicuously flat outer edge is impossible to overlook. As you’d imagine, stuffing that additional sprocket into the same space that was once reserved for an 11-speed cassette necessitates tighter sprocket spacing and a narrower chain, which wouldn’t seem to bode well for drivetrain longevity or noise.

But with this new FlatTop chain, SRAM says the additional link material yields the same chain life as before, simply by adding more metal between the pins. That may seem intuitive enough, but what’s less obvious is that SRAM has also enlarged the chain roller diameter slightly relative to current 11-speed norms. According to SRAM, the increase in surface contact between the chain, cassette, and chainrings further helps reduce drivetrain wear.

The FlatTop chain is narrower than previous 11-speed models, but features more material on its outer edge to help maintain strength and durability. The master link is obviously unique as well, and like other SRAM master links, is meant to be a one-time-use item.

Moreover, although the spacing between the sprockets is about 0.2mm tighter than before, the sprockets and chainrings themselves are the same thickness. And because the overall chain width has narrowed even more so (by 0.6mm), there’s more of a gap between the side plates and the cassette sprockets. According to SRAM, that extra space not only makes the drivetrain quieter than before, but easier to set up, too.

The change in chain dimensions does come with a bit of unwanted baggage. For example, many Red eTap AXS buyers and mechanics may find themselves needing a new chain tool and chain checker. So far, just the Park CT-3.3, and “select” Pedro’s, Topeak, and Rohloff ones have all been approved. And obviously, the matching non-standard tooth profiles in the cassette and chainrings complicate aftermarket compatibility and options down the road.

From AIREA to AXS

Gearing changes aside, the biggest difference between old and new Red eTap is the revamped AXS (say, “access”) wireless system, which now sends more information-rich data between the different components, and finally allows for customizable settings through the SRAM AXS app via Bluetooth.

Among those new settings are options for sequential shifting and automatic corrections. For the former, you just tell the system you want a harder or easier gear, and then it’ll decide what combination of front and rear shifts is necessary to make it happen. For the latter, manual front shifts are accompanied by automatic rear shifts to minimize the ratio jump. Both options have long been available in Shimano’s Di2 electronic drivetrains, so it’s good to see SRAM catch up here.

The new Red AXS levers have the same shape as before, but with new graphics and more pronounced texturing. Inside each lever is the same CR2032 coin-cell battery, with the same two-year claimed run time.

Individual shift buttons can also be programmed. Want to switch the paddle shifter configuration? Or install a Blip remote to use just for a dropper seatpost or front shifting? Done, and done. And if you really want to be creative, you can just use the BlipBox (normally used for time trial and triathlon bikes) with non-SRAM brakes and Blip remotes for a truly customized setup. The choice is yours.

However you set it up, the iOS and Android-compatible app will also provide service reminders based on mileage, as well as firmware updates as needed.

All firmware updates and settings will be done wirelessly through the SRAM AXS app. Photo: SRAM.

SRAM hasn’t gone into great detail on what else might be possible with AXS down the road, but the company’s marketing materials are clearly leaving the door open for much more. Might that include things like computer and lighting controls, or suspension settings? All of that — and more — seems well within reason.

Despite the fact that there’s more information being ferried around, SRAM says that refinements and efficiencies in how the levers and various components communicate with each other yield slightly faster shifts relative to Red eTap — a good thing, considering that was one of the few criticisms I had with the system before. That speed increase is greater still with 1x Red eTap AXS drivetrains, too.

Updated derailleurs

The new rear derailleur obviously looks quite a bit different from the old one, but those differences are more than just skin-deep.

First and foremost, the enlarged lower knuckle does indeed incorporate a new chain control device just as we (and others) had suspected. However, one subtle distinction to note is that it’s more of a one-way damper than a one-way clutch.

From afar, changes to the rear derailleur seem mostly cosmetic.

The new Orbit fluid damper allows for free cage movement in both directions when the applied forces are low and the movements are slow, but it restricts forward cage movement with higher forces and faster movement. In other words, shifts shouldn’t eat up a bunch of extra battery life, and there shouldn’t be any additional drivetrain friction, either. But cage movement is greatly reduced when you hit bumps or patches of rough ground, and because that movement is still controlled somewhat in both directions, the drivetrain should generally remain quieter and run more smoothly than a one-way mechanical clutch.

Inside, SRAM has also fitted a new chipset and motor, which further helps speed along beyond the improvements provided by the new wireless messaging.

The original Red eTap rear derailleur was offered in both standard and WiFLi versions to suit traditional road and wider-range cassettes, but SRAM isn’t bothering this time around for Red eTap AXS. Instead, there will be just a single medium-length cage for both 1x and 2x configurations that will handle sprockets up to 33T in size, with a maximum capacity (total chainring tooth difference plus total cassette tooth difference) of 36T. For anything bigger than either of those, you’ll have to switch to an Eagle AXS mountain bike rear derailleur.

Inside the enlarged lower knuckle is a one-way fluid damper for enhanced chain control.

Down below, the pulleys grow in size from 11T to 12T, and the lower one also now sports a narrow-wide profile for enhanced chain security.

Similarly, the new front derailleur wears the same snazzy chrome-and-black look as the rest of the groupset, but gravel riders will be happy to hear that SRAM has moved the removable battery outboard slightly so as to provide better tire clearance. Officially, the new front derailleur will handle tires up to 40mm-wide (which means that there’s invariably a little more wiggle room for riders willing to take the risk).

The front derailleur uses the same battery as before, but it’s pushed outward a bit for better tire clearance. The official 700x40mm maximum tire clearance likely means that there will be 6mm of physical space in between the two.

And speaking of that battery, rest assured that it’s the same unit as before with no changes whatsoever. Claimed run time is 60 hours on average, and charge time is pegged at an hour.

Improved ergonomics and lever feel, mostly carryover brakes

Nothing has changed in terms of the new Red eTap AXS’s lever shape relative to Red eTap. But SRAM has covered the body with a newly textured hood for improved grip — especially when wet — and there’s also a more pronounced texture on each shifter paddle. In addition, each shift paddle has a noticeably stronger and louder click.

As before, lever reach is adjustable for riders with smaller or larger hands, and hydraulic levers can also be tuned for lever throw.

The brake calipers themselves are carried over intact across the board, with the same cable-actuated rim brakes and hydraulic disc brakes as before — which is just fine, considering both were already excellent.

The hydraulic disc brakes and cable-actuated rim brakes are unchanged from the previous generation. The rotor is new, though.

SRAM has updated the disc rotors, though, introducing a new XR design that uses the same steel brake track as before, but with a larger and more pronounced aluminum carrier for both six-bolt and Center Lock versions (and rounded rotor edges, of course). SRAM isn’t making any performance claims around the change, though, so while the updated shaping seems to imply improved heat management or aerodynamics, it seems like it’s mostly just an aesthetic thing.

Power meter and crank controversy

Power measurement is becoming an increasingly integral part of high-performance road cycling, and not surprisingly, the new Red eTap AXS groupset makes a big deal of its new Quarq power meter.

On the surface, there’s a lot to like. First off, SRAM has dropped its power meter prices: it’s now a relatively modest US$500 upcharge when buying a new Red AXS groupset, which is particularly impressive given Quarq’s long track record of reliability and accuracy, plus the fact that it’s a true dual-sided system. The new power meter is also more visually integrated than before, and it admittedly looks rather slick.

The new crank certainly looks striking.

But that integration goes well beyond aesthetics, and it’s here where SRAM is likely to draw a fair bit of criticism (including from me). As with the non-power meter crank, the double chainring is made as a single piece of machined aluminum, but in this case, it’s also fully incorporated with the power meter.

In other words, when it comes time to replace a worn chainring with a new one, you’ll now have to get yourself a new power meter to go with it. According to Quarq technical director Jim Meyer (who also founded Quarq before SRAM acquired the company in 2011), the decision to combine the power meter with a consumable drivetrain component was based on long-term accuracy, and specifically drift.

On a more conventional spider-based power meter, the bolted interfaces between the chainrings and power meter, and between the crankarm and power meter, can sometimes induce residual stresses that can affect the power readings over time. But with this integrated design (plus the eight-bolt crankarm-to-spider interface SRAM introduced a couple of years ago), Meyer says that drift is no longer an issue, and riders that are serious about their training will be able to have more confidence that changes they’re seeing over time are directly related to their training, not their hardware.

SRAM is taking a big risk by integrating the chainring(s) and power meter as a single unit – if something goes wrong or wears out with one, you have to replace the whole thing.

Some solace comes in SRAM’s claims that the new chainrings will last “50% longer” than current Red chainrings. The company will also implement an exchange program whereby Red eTap AXS power meter owners will be able to trade in their worn setup for a new one at half-price. And in fairness to SRAM, there are plenty of high-end road riders who don’t log a ton of hours on their gear, and aren’t exactly blowing through drivetrain components.

That’s all well and good, but between the one-piece machined double chainring and integrated power meter, we’re still talking about a serious chunk of change. Full retail price on the assembly is US$820, so an exchanged one will set you back US$410. For the sake of comparison, a new one-piece Red AXS double chainring will cost US$300, so in some sense, it’s not a huge difference.

But that said, a current Red eTap inner chainring (which is what usually wears out faster) sells for about US$40.

Single-ring? Double? Time trial chainrings? Yes, yes, and yes. And you can also get the new SRAM Red AXS crankset without the power meter, too. Photo: SRAM.

Will that be a dealbreaker? That’s not for me to say, but it’s certainly something that every potential Red AXS buyer should consider if they’re thinking about power. And if nothing else, it sure provides a lot of motivation to keep your drivetrain well maintained, clean, and properly lubricated.

One bright spot on this subject: Given that 1x chainrings generally wear out a lot faster than 2x setups, those will still be separate from the power meter itself.

As we reported earlier, SRAM is also introducing for the first time on the road its DUB spindle and bottom bracket format. Whereas the current GXP uses a stepped 24/22mm-diameter steel spindle, and PF/BB30 ones use a 30mm-diameter aluminum one, DUB goes with 28.99mm (yes, really). According to SRAM, the slightly smaller diameter yields improved bearing longevity on bikes that would normally use a 30mm spindle. In some cases, that switch will also yield almost 100g in weight savings on bikes.

Of course, that change in spindle diameter necessitates a change in bottom brackets, too, which very few people are likely to be all that happy about, but so be it.

As expected, SRAM has brought its somewhat controversial DUB bottom bracket standard to the road for 2019. Also, that little cover on the left is purely cosmetic. Weight weenies, take note that there’s an easy 7g to be saved there.

Perhaps more importantly on the OEM side of things, DUB means that one spindle will now fit almost every bottom bracket shell format on the market. One exception is Trek’s BB90/BB95 system, but for that (and possibly other) format, SRAM will still offer the standard GXP format.

Compatibility issues

Naturally, the question of compatibility will arise between the new SRAM Red AXS and the existing Red eTap, particularly for riders that are currently on the latter, but are interested in upgrading to the former.

Cue the sad trombones: Aside from the brake calipers, batteries, and a few other small bits, there is no cross-compatibility whatsoever between the two generations.

Part of this is due to the oversized chain dimension that SRAM has opted to use on Red eTap AXS, but the bigger issue is the wireless communication.

The fact that the chain uses larger-diameter rollers than normal might help with drivetrain wear, but it also guarantees that none of the drivetrain components will be compatible with anything else.

Meyer acknowledged that existing Red eTap hardware could technically be made to work with the new bits, since the basic wireless language itself hasn’t changed. But because the old levers aren’t fitted with Bluetooth (current Red eTap uses a separate USB dongle for that task), implementing the necessary firmware updates was deemed to be unreasonably challenging on a wide scale.

Needless to say, that’s supremely disappointing, and like it or not, Red eTap AXS will basically stand on its own island. That is, except for …

Force eTap at last

After years of anticipation, SRAM has finally announced that a Force wireless groupset will join the Red flagship this coming April. SRAM hasn’t unveiled much in the way of additional details, but based on previous iterations of Red vs. Force, we can expect virtually identical functionality between the two, but with a variety of material substitutions, such as steel instead of titanium hardware, aluminum in place of carbon fiber, and so on.

Meyer did provide one juicy hint, however: It sounds like Force eTap AXS won’t use the same ultra-integrated power meter and chainring system as Red eTap AXS, so there might be light at the end of the tunnel if you’re not keen on the latter’s heady drivetrain replacement costs.

And what about mechanical Red?

Conspicuously absent from any of SRAM’s communications on the new Red eTap AXS groupset was any mention of a mechanical analogue. The current Red 22 groupset is still a solid competitor, but it’s also getting a little long in the tooth. And at the OEM level, it’s clear that there’s been far more interest in the eTap wireless version. But needless to say, not everyone will be able afford the new Red eTap AXS stuff, nor will everyone want to go electronic, so it would seem to make sense to see a revamped mechanical edition that uses the same X-Range gearing concept.

Might that still happen, or will Force eTap AWS now occupy the top rung at that price point, and is SRAM expecting that far more people will go that route? At this point, it’s anyone’s guess.

“We do not comment on potential future developments,” said SRAM senior PR manager Michael Zellmann.

Pricing, claimed weights, and availability

Retail prices and claimed weights for complete SRAM Red eTap AXS groupsets are as follows (and you’d better sit down first). Australian pricing is still to be confirmed.

As for availability, the bike industry finally seems to be learning a thing or two, as all of the new Red eTap AXS bits should be available both in-store and online as of right now. It’ll be a similar story when Force eTap AXS is announced in April. Hallelujah.

On the road (and dirt) with Red eTap AXS

SRAM sent out a Red eTap AXS-equipped Scott Addict Gravel for me to use here in Colorado, and the recent snows — and subsequent warming — have made for some messy test conditions. But I’ve been riding the stuff nevertheless, and I have to admit (at least given early impressions) that this stuff is really, really good.

Be as skeptical as you wish about the new X-Range concept, but it’s hard to argue with it in practice. My loaner arrived with the 46/33T chainrings and 10-33T cassette, which provides the 1:1 gearing I prefer on gravel rides around here, as well as a top-end that’s actually a bit bigger than a conventional 50-11T combination, all with refreshingly small gaps in between. Shifts have been positive and precise, and front shifting in particular is a big improvement over anything SRAM has produced to date on the road.

SRAM is billing its new Red AXS flagship as the ultimate groupset for drop bar bikes.

As promised, rear shifts do feel a touch quicker than before, although still a step behind Shimano’s lightning-fast Di2. It’s hardly a deal breaker, though, and it’s fair to wonder how many riders ultimately would care about that sort of thing, anyway. In all honesty, it’s likely something I’d forget about were I not switching between groupsets so frequently.

More important to me is how the new levers feel. The new hoods are nicely shaped and provide fantastic grip — especially when wet — and while the shift paddles were already a ready target before, the added texturing makes them even easier to find, particularly when wearing full-fingered gloves. I also very much welcome the increase in tactile feedback.

SRAM didn’t go into any detail on changes in the master cylinder for my disc-equipped sample, but it’s worth noting that the brake levers have a lighter action to them overall, and return with more speed and snap. In fact, they’re starting to encroach on Shimano territory. Functionally, SRAM’s hydraulic disc brakes had already been my favorite for power and control, and the improvement in feel only widens the gap.

As a very pleasant bonus, I’ve found them to run utterly silently so far, too, even when the rotors are splattered with soupy mud and road spray.

You can most definitely feel the new paddle texturing with your fingers.

That soupy mud brought that issue of chainring replacement cost straight to the front of my mind, however; it was hard not to think about it given the sound of all that decomposed Colorado granite ruthlessly grinding away at those machined aluminum chainring teeth. Were this my personal bike, I’d be strongly tempted to wait for the Force-level power meter to come out in April, and deal with the more regular power meter calibrations in trade for the reduced maintenance costs. Nevertheless, that’s a cost-benefit analysis you’ll have to make for yourself.

This particular bike will be going back to SRAM shortly, but arriving in is place will be a proper long-term groupset, mounted to a Mason Cycles Bokeh with 650b wheels. I can’t say if these favorable early impressions will hold up long-term, but we’ll find out soon enough. Stay tuned for more.

www.sram.com

The upper blob is still pretty big and bulbous, but time has lessened the visual shock. At least to me, it now looks pretty normal.

The texturing on the hoods allows for a more secure grip with less hand effort. It’s particularly noticeable when your hands are wet.

Small buttons on the inside of each shift paddle are used for indexing adjustment and to select different shift maps.

Lever reach is adjustable, along with lever throw on hydraulic models.

The clamp bolts are refreshingly easy to access.

Two additional ports allow for remote shifters to be plugged in.

I don’t have any claimed rigidity figures from SRAM, but if only by inspection, stiffness of the new one-piece machined double chainring seems vastly improved over the previous version.

The new SRAM Red AXS crankarm uses the same eight-bolt interface that the company introduced a couple of years ago for its power meter cranks. According to Quarq technical director Jim Meyer, the pattern generates less residual stress in the parts when assembled, which makes for better power meter readings.

Even with SRAM’s trade-in program for worn chainrings, dropping US$410 for a replacement power meter-plus-chainring setup is a big ask.

Some will think the new one-piece machined double chainring will look busy, while others will think it looks fantastic. Either way, it works well.

A threaded collar on the non-driveside crankarm adjusts the bearing preload on the bottom bracket.

Just a bit of bright silver to lighten things up.

As with the previous Red cassette, the new Red AXS piece is a brilliant piece of engineering. The smallest 11 sprockets are machined from a single chunk of steel, while the largest one is machined from aluminum and then pressed into place.

Although the chain is narrower than before, and the cassette sprockets are closer together, the sprockets themselves (and the chainrings) are the same thickness, which bodes well for drivetrain wear.

The teeth on the new cassette sprockets and chainring have deeper troughs to match with the larger chain rollers, which bodes well for durability, but not for compatibility.

A look inside the cutouts on the back of the cassette provide a good glimpse at how the cassette is manufactured.

Unfortunately, the SRAM Red AXS 12-speed cassette doesn’t fit on standard Shimano/SRAM freehub bodies; they’re too big to fit the 10-tooth sprocket. The XDR body is nearly identical to SRAM’s current XD mountain bike freehub body, but is nearly 2mm longer.

Although the electronics and motor on the new Red AXS rear derailleur are basically carried over, SRAM says that efficiencies in how the wireless signals are sent yield slightly faster shift performance, especially on 1x drivetrain setups.

The removable rechargeable battery is the same as what SRAM uses on the current Red eTap groupset.

As with other pieces of the SRAM Red AXS groupset, the bits of polished silver help to lighten the mood.

Twelve-tooth pulley wheels are used top and bottom, along with carbon fiber cage plates.

The lower pulley (at right) sports a narrow-wide profile for better chain control.

SRAM says the new Orbit fluid damper isn’t serviceable, although you can see how you might be able to get at it if needed.

The Orbit fluid damper uses a spring-loaded poppet valve that allows for free oil flow mostly in one direction. Apologies for the slightly blurry image, but this is all we received from SRAM. Photo: SRAM.

Front shifting on the Red AXS groupset is noticeably improved. Whether that’s due to the revised front derailleur, the tighter chainring gaps, or the one-piece machined aluminum double chainring is hard to say. Either way, the end result is a net positive.

Just like the current Red eTap system, tapping the button on the front derailleur body actuates a shift, which is often handy when making adjustments.

Markings on the derailleur cage help with height and angle positioning.

A small wedge on the inside of the front derailleur body provides a second bracing point to reduce unwanted flex during shifts.

The forged aluminum caliper body’s highly polished finish looks great, and is a refreshing change from all the black we usually see.

As before, the disc brake uses the same Bleeding Edge bleed port for straightforward setup and maintenance.

Changes on the rotor are mostly visual in nature. The aluminum carrier has a pseudo-aero look to it, but the steel brake track is the same.

The post SRAM Red eTap AXS first-ride review: More than just another sprocket appeared first on CyclingTips.

Gravel riding can mean all sorts of things, depending on where a rider chooses to ride. While there is some expectation than an amount of unpaved terrain will be involved, this can range from a groomed path to rugged and remote terrain. Needless to say, the choice of equipment, especially tyres, becomes increasingly important as the terrain gets more demanding.

In this regard, high volume tubeless tyres are a good choice for testing conditions because they provide more traction, grip, and puncture-resistance than narrower, road-oriented offerings. Just how much of each will depend upon the construction of the tyre and the nature of the tread.

This is something that Maxxis understands well, which is why they have a range of seven gravel tyres on offer with different casings and tread designs. Matt Wikstrom recently put three of these tyres to the test, which featured increasingly aggressive tread patterns, to learn more about what Maxxis has to offer gravel riders.

Maxxis is a tyre brand that a lot of cyclists, especially MTBers, will recognise. As familiar as the brand may be, Maxxis is a relatively new face for a company, Cheng Shin Rubber, that has been making tyres since 1967. The Taiwanese company started out manufacturing bicycle tyres, but in the years since then, it has expanded its interests to include all sorts of automotive and motorcycle tyres to become the ninth largest tyre manufacturer in the world.

Clearly, the company has plenty of experience with tyres, and it shows in the range of tyres that can be found in the current Maxxis bicycle tyre catalogue. There is something on offer for almost every discipline, though it’s fair to say that the brand enjoys its strongest reputation with off-road riders.

When it comes to gravel-oriented tyres, Maxxis currently has seven models: three (Raze, All Terrane, and Speed Terrane) are borrowed from cyclocross, so are limited to a width of 33C, while the other four models are available in a plumper 40C width with either a slick tread (Re-Fuse and Velocita AR) or knobbies (Rambler and Ravager).

All but the Raze are tubeless tyres, a feature that has to be counted as nearly indispensable for gravel riding. That doesn’t mean these tyres can’t be used with tubes, though; like any tubeless tyre, buyers are free to use them with inner tubes if they would rather avoid sealants and the vagaries of specific tubeless tyre/rim compatibility.

From slick to gnarly, the Re-Fuse (left), Rambler (middle), and Ravager (right) have different tread designs to suit different riding conditions.

Three tubeless tyres with three different treads

The candidates for this review — Ravager, Rambler and Re-Fuse — were supplied by Lusty Industries and chosen on the basis of two criteria: first, tubeless compatibility; and second, a 40C width. At face value, the latter may seem an arbitrary preference — and to a certain extent it is, fashioned by my bias for rugged terrain — however gravel bikes are tending to provide more tyre clearance in the name of versatility. In this regard, tyre width resembles sprocket size, because neither are any fun to ride when they are too small for the terrain ahead.

Selecting this trio of tyres provided a pleasing progression in tread design from a near slick (Re-Fuse) to a true knobby (Ravager) with a Goldilocks option (Rambler) in between. When viewed side-by-side, some riders will be able to make some educated guesses at the strengths and weaknesses of each. Failing that, Maxxis ranks each in terms of two key features: cornering control and rolling efficiency.

Accordingly, Maxxis promises that the Re-Fuse offers the greatest rolling efficiency of the three, but this is coupled with the least amount of cornering control. The Ravager, by contrast, provides the maximum amount of cornering control with much less rolling efficiency, while the Rambler improves upon the weaknesses of each, especially cornering control, without shining in either regard.

Maxxis separates the performance of the Ravager, Rambler, and Re-Fuse on the basis of rolling efficiency and cornering control.

Maxxis even goes so far as to provide a terrain guide for each tyre: the Re-Fuse is designed for hard pack only; the Rambler can contend with hard pack, with or without a loose covering; and the Ravager is best suited to medium, even loose, conditions. Importantly, none of these tyres are specifically designed to contend with wet or muddy terrain, so for those riders that enjoy getting filthy will have to look elsewhere for a suitable tyre.

Maxxis uses two rubber compounds to create the tread for each of these tyres, one underlaying the other. A firm compound is used for the foundation of the tread, while a second, softer compound, serves the surface. In the case of the Ravager and Rambler, the same combination of compounds is used, so the only difference between the tread of each is the size and shape of the knobs.

More differences below the tread

The Ravager, Rambler and Re-Fuse all feature single-ply casings with 60tpi or 120tpi to which at least one extra layer of material is added for puncture- and/or tear-resistance. In the case of the Re-Fuse, the 60tpi casing is bolstered with two extra layers of protection, one layer of so-called SilkShield that runs from bead-to-bead, and a layer of K2 (a proprietary version of Kevlar) for the centre of the tread. This combination maximises puncture-resistance, but it increases the final weight of the tyre, such that it was the heaviest of the three tyres reviewed here.

The casing of each tyre varies in terms of thread count and reinforcing materials. The Ravager and Rambler each have one layer of extra protection while the Re-Fuse offers two.

Maxxis gives buyers a choice of two casings for the Ravager and Rambler. The first option combines 60tpi casing with SilkShield, similar to the Re-Fuse; the second is 120tpi casing with so-called EXO protection, where an extra layer of material is used to line the sidewalls to specifically protect the tyre against cuts and abrasions from rocks. Aside from the difference in fortification, there’s also a difference in weight, such that tyres with 60tpi/SilkShield are ~10% heavier than those with 120tpi/EXO.

The samples provided for this review all featured carbon fibre folding beads that Maxxis believes is better suited to higher tyre pressures. That seems like overkill for a 40C tyre, but given that a lot of cyclists tend to over-inflate their tyres, at least for road use, the extra bead strength may be warranted. Be that as it may, the maximum recommended pressure for each tyre is a modest (yet sensible) 75psi/5.2bar.

Weight, price, and options

Of the three tyres supplied for this review, the Rambler (120tpi/EXO casing) was the lightest at 417g; the Ravager (120tpi/EXO casing) weighed 479g; and the Re-Fuse was 518g. Compared to conventional road tyres, these weights may seem high, however they are close to the norm for a 700 x 40C tyre (e.g. Schwalbe’s tubeless G-One Allround weighs ~460g). For those hoping to save some weight, the Velocita AR is the lightest gravel tyre in the Maxxis catalogue with a claimed weight of 380g (120tpi/EXO casing).

The Re-Fuse is the heaviest tyre in this trio, while the Rambler is the lightest.

The Ravager, Rambler, and Re-Fuse all sell for around the same price — AU$80-85 | US$64 | £55-60 — regardless of casing choice. At present, the Ravager is available in one size only, 700 x 40C; the Rambler is available three sizes, 700 x 38C, 700 x 40C, and 27.5 x 1.50in; and the Re-fuse is also available in three sizes, 700 x32C, 700 x 40C, and 27.5 x 2.00in.

Three distinct tread designs makes for three distinct tyres

After spending a few weeks comparing the Ravager, Rambler, and Re-Fuse, the results weren’t surprising because each lived up to the performance ratings and terrain recommendations provided by Maxxis.

All three tyres were tested on one bike, a Specialized Crux Pro, where the 40-41mm measured width for each came close to challenging the amount of clearance the frame had to offer. I expected the knobby Ravager to take up more room than the Re-Fuse, and while the knobs added to the overall width and height of the tyre, it was only a matter of an extra 1-2mm, depending on tyre pressure.

The near-slick tread of the Re-Fuse is well suited for road use.

The Re-Fuse looks light, but it has two layers of puncture-proofing that promise a very tough tyre.

The Re-Fuse works just as well on hard packed trails.

In the absence of any knobs, the Re-Fuse can’t offer grip and traction when the surface starts to get loose.

Installing each tyre was no more or less demanding than any tubeless tyre. The larger volume of a 40C tyre means that a standard floor pump won’t puff it up quickly enough to get it seated; an air compressor is a far better choice for this kind of job, especially when the tyres are still stiff out of the packet. With that said, once it came to re-installing the tyres, I was able to use a floor pump to inflate and seat the tyres with relative ease.

All tyres were inflated to 40psi/2.8bar throughout the review period. This is a pressure that works well for me when tackling mixed terrain: firm enough for paved roads, yet quite forgiving for unpaved, even rugged, terrain. Any time that I’ve experimented with lower pressures for a gravel tyre, on-road performance is always the first to suffer, while any off-road gains are normally a matter of nuance.

Comparing the on-road performance of each tyre was a straightforward matter, and the results were entirely expected: the Re-Fuse offered the best performance followed by the Rambler, while the Ravager was ill-suited to tarmac. This was not simply a matter of poor rolling efficiency, the Ravager’s large knobs interfered with the steering, rendering the front wheel somewhat unpredictable when cornering.

The Ravager is in many ways the antithesis of the Re-Fuse.

The raised knobby tread reduces the rolling efficiency of the tyre but provides plenty of grip and traction in loose conditions.

A soft compound ensures that the knobs are able to move around to gain purchase on tricky surfaces but they will squirm on tarmac.

The Ravager looks like a small MTB tyre and it offers the same kind of off-road performance, too. Brilliant.

Anybody that has ridden an MTB on the road will already understand this: a knobby tyre has an uneven surface that effectively raises it off the ground, resulting in less grip. The knobs also squirm around under load, especially as the wheel is tilted into a turn. Compared to a road-oriented tyre like the Re-Fuse, it makes for an unsettling sensation, which undermined my confidence to the point where I was reluctant to corner aggressively when riding the Ravagers.

The Rambler was a much easier tyre to use on the road, and in many ways, it resembled the Re-Fuse. It never felt quite as swift or agile, though. Interestingly, when I compared the top speed for a short descent, all three tyres performed equally well from a standing start (Figure 1A). A steady effort over three laps of a short 3.3km circuit was a different matter: in this setting, the Re-Fuse was a quicker tyre while the Ravager and Rambler couldn’t be separated (Figure 1B).

Figure 1: Results of comparative testing for the Ravager, Rambler, and Re-Fuse. (A) Top speed measured for a short descent from a standing start on two occasions, first comparing the Ravager with the Rambler, and then the Ravager with the Re-Fuse. Data was collected for three runs and averaged. (B) Lap times measured for a 3.2km road circuit on two occasions, first comparing the Ravager with the Rambler, and then the Ravager with the Re-Fuse. Data was collected for three laps and averaged. (C) Lap times measured for a 2.0km off-road circuit on one occasion, comparing the Ravager with the Re-Fuse. Data was collected for three laps and averaged. All tyres were inflated to 40psi/2.8bar for each comparison.

Moving onto unpaved terrain, the Re-Fuse worked really well in the absence of any loose material (e.g. sand, pea gravel), offering a lovely plush ride that smoothed out all sorts of ruts and bumps. There was plenty of grip in the corners, too, especially when compared to a narrower (e.g. 28C) road tyre.

Living in an area where a lot of the unpaved terrain is typically dry and dusty, it wasn’t hard to challenge the off-road capabilities of the Re-Fuse. This tyre was prone to sliding in sand and didn’t have much to offer in terms of traction when I was out of the saddle on dusty climbs. It was still possible to traverse some slippery sections, but I had to work hard to keep the bike under control.

This was the realm where the Ravager was able to shine. Cornering control was much improved, as was traction, so I didn’t have to work as hard, or concentrate as much, to ride the bike. Indeed, I was able to attack sandy sections with a new level of confidence because I could maintain my line and make corrections as required without the tyres skating away from me.

The Rambler is a tyre for Goldilocks, and arguably the most versatile tyre in this review.

The low-profile knobs offer some grip and traction on loose surfaces, yet the tyre rolls quite well on tarmac, too.

The low, broad knobs do not squirm noticeably on the road, even when cornering aggressively.

The Rambler makes use of the same exact casing and rubber compounds as the Ravager, so the differences in performance can all be attributed to the design of the tread.

As impressive as the Ravager was, when put to the test against the clock on a 2km circuit that was part hardpack and part loose singletrack, I was no quicker than when I was using the Re-Fuse (Figure 1C). My bike control was noticeably less erratic though, and I relished the extra steering control and traction that was at my disposal. A closer look at my splits for the loose section of this course revealed that the Ravager offered a small edge, so I suspect that if I was able to repeat this test on a longer stretch of loose singletrack, the Ravager would trump the Re-Fuse.

I didn’t bother repeating this test with the Rambler, but in terms of cornering control and traction, it also trumped the Re-Fuse. And while I could tackle loose conditions with some of the same confidence as the Ravager, once the terrain turned to sand, the Rambler was just as slippery as the Re-Fuse.

Perhaps the most surprising revelation to come from comparing these tyres was the way that the Ravager’s knobby tread worked to provide some extra comfort. This was most noticeable for rugged surfaces, where the tyres were always a little plusher than the Rambler and Re-Fuse. With that said, the Ravagers never managed to transform the Crux Pro into a pillowy cruiser, but they consistently took the edge off every bump, rut, and rock I encountered. When coupled with the Ravager’s impressive grip and traction, it was easily the best tyre for my local gravel rides.

Summary and final thoughts

The Ravager, Rambler, and Re-Fuse are all capable high-volume tubeless gravel tyres, though it should be clear from the comparisons above that there is a limit to the capabilities of each. The Re-Fuse was quick and agile on paved surfaces, and while it performed nearly as well on hardpack, this tyre struggled with loose surfaces. The Ravager was the antithesis, struggling with tarmac but shining off-road, while the Rambler fell somewhere in between with a pleasing Goldilocks blend of traits.

Understanding this, it should be obvious that deciding on the best tyre from this bunch for any individual will be a matter of matchmaking. Here the local terrain will be decisive, as will be their riding preferences, and their equipment. The number of mainstream gravel bikes that have been designed around high-volume tyres has been growing, and while this threatens to blur the boundary with MTB, once experienced, it is hard to go back to smaller tyres.

With just a few weeks of testing, I’m not in a position to comment on the puncture-resistance of the tyres reviewed here, or the relative effectiveness of EXO versus SilkShield. Nevertheless, I appreciate that Maxxis offers the Ravager and Rambler with a choice of casings, and more importantly, that there is no upcharge for one over the other. The only shortcoming that I can identify, and it’s a minor one, is that Maxxis has yet to offer the Ravager for 27.5in/650B wheels.

The post Maxxis tubeless gravel tyres review: Ravager versus Rambler and Re-Fuse appeared first on CyclingTips.

If you’ve got a helmet with a magnetic buckle, the chances are pretty much 100% that it was made by a little-known German company called Fidlock. Fidlock’s Snap helmet buckle uses a mushroom-shaped stub on one side that meshes with a sliding latch on the other side. A magnet pulls the two halves of the buckle together — and you just have to get the pieces close to each other. To undo the buckle, you slide the halves sideways.

It’s an ingenious (and secure) system, and given the Snap buckle’s increasing popularity in terms of spec on new helmets, it’s clearly gaining favor on the consumer side, too.

Fidlock has a surprisingly diverse range of products (I strongly suggest you take a look at the company catalog), and the company recently adapted that same mechanism to a novel cageless water bottle system called Twist. There’s a low-profile base that bolts to your frame as usual, and then a dedicated bottle that’s offered in both 600mL and 450mL sizes.

View this post on Instagram

(Sound on!) Interesting, and a pretty neat idea. Bonus points for not ejecting bottles on rough ground, too. But I’m not convinced. Full review dropping on @cyclingtips next week.

A post shared by James Huang (@angryasian) on Feb 14, 2019 at 11:25am PST

There’s even a Uni Connector (with a Boa dial!) that will allow you to attach nearly any bottle to a Twist base, as well as a Uni Base that uses rubber straps instead of the usual bolt-on attachment.

Regardless of the combination, the way the base and bottle attach to each other is the same. Whereas the Snap helmet buckle just uses one of those mushroom-shaped stubs, Twist uses two. As with the helmet buckle, all you have to do to securely connect the two pieces together is hold them near each other. To remove the bottle, you — go figure — twist the bottle on the base.

Now you see it, now you don’t.

Without question, it’s very clever, and just like the Snap helmet buckle, it’s admirably secure. Whether on smooth roads, rough gravel, on trails, or whatever, I never lost a Twist bottle, which I most definitely can not say about every other cageless bottle system I’ve used in the past.

And given that Fidlock has seemingly cracked the code on cageless bottle security, there are the usual advantages to the format in general. For travel bikes, the low-profile base makes it easier to stuff an S&S or Ritchey Breakaway bike into an airline-legal case. And for cyclocross, it means you can have a bottle at the ready for training rides or warm-up laps, but then quickly ditch it without having to worry that an empty cage will snag your jersey. Trail riders on full-suspension bikes with limited clearance may find that the Twist allows them to carry more water than usual, too.

The mechanism Fidlock uses for its helmet buckles is the same as what’s found in the Twist Bottle.

Weight-wise, it’s basically a wash. A complete Fidlock Twist 600 bottle-and-cage set comes in at 121g, which is virtually identical to a standard Specialized Big Mouth bottle (78g or 90g, depending on size) and most modern fiber composite cages.

A neat idea, but one without a clear purpose

The problem, however, is that the Fidlock Twist seems to create more problems than it solves.

The twist motion itself is easy enough, and it takes no time at all to adapt while in the saddle. However, getting the bottle back on the base is a different story. Although the “just get it close” concept sounds good in theory, in practice, it’s more like “just get it close … but make sure the two mushrooms and sockets are reasonably well aligned first — oh, and make sure the bottle is rotated the right way, too.”

The mechanism Fidlock uses for the Twist Bottle system is actually quite clever. Magnets pull the two sides together in a satisfying “snap”, but the two parts are held together mechanically with almost zero chance of losing a bottle during a ride.

In some ways, I equate it to the infotainment systems on many modern cars. Sure, it’s great that you’ve integrated the volume control into a high-definition full-color touchscreen. But you know what I really want? A knob I can grab without looking for it.

Fidlock also only offers the Twist in a single configuration, meaning you have to rotate the top to the right when it’s mounted on the down tube, but to the left if it’s mounted to the seat tube. The bottle itself is merely ok, too. The top is nice enough — easy to open and close, and leak-free — but the body is hard to squeeze. And since the Twist is a proprietary platform, you’re stuck with dedicated Fidlock bottles.

Granted, Fidlock does have that universal Boa-equipped adapter, but that’s more likely to be used for stuff like fuel bottles and other oddly-shaped bike packing gear.

When the bottle isn’t attached, all that’s left is this low-profile base plate.

Cost-wise, the Fidlock isn’t horrible, but it’s not exactly cheap, either. A complete kit with one base and one bottle costs US$40 / AU$60 / £31 / €30; individual bottles are roughly the same as usual. Given the complexity involved, it’s a pretty reasonable figure.

But at least for me, Fidlock is going to have to make a stronger case than just novelty for the Twist bottle to make sense, especially when something like the Bontrager Quick Connect bottle mount offers similar niche benefits without any of the downsides (and yes, I’ll have a review of that soon), plus the fact that there are already plenty of excellent side-access cages available for frames with tight clearances.

Until then, it’s back to regular bottles for me — and volume knobs.

www.fidlock-bike.com

The post Fidlock Twist Bottle review: A clever design in need of a purpose appeared first on CyclingTips.

Things have never been easier if you’re looking to click your fingers and start working on your bikes. For approximately every seven cat videos, YouTube has an instructional video explaining how to do common and not-so-common cycling repair tasks. And from there, you’re just a few tools away from feeling like MacGyver.

Tool brands know this too, and recent years have seen a surge in quality starter toolkits to get you set up and wrenching with the same items the mechanics at your local bike shop would use.

Tech writer and loyal tool nerd, Dave Rome, has been testing a number of these pre-assembled kits as of late. First was PRO’s Toolbox XL, then Feedback Sports’ Team Issue, and more recently the Park Tool Advanced Mechanic Toolset. This time, Rome takes a detailed look into the Pro Home Kit (1600CN) from Slovenian steel hand-tool specialists Unior.

A little Unior history

Established in 1919 as an agricultural tool maker, Unior is now one of the old guards in European tools. Not too long ago, Unior acquired a majority stake in a steelworks company, becoming a company that predominately owns its supply chain. From a public-facing standpoint, Unior is best known for its hand tools, but the company also does steelwork for the likes of VW, BMW and Renault.

In 2005, Unior took its hand tools expertise – which was mostly being used in automotive markets – and started producing dedicated bicycle tools. Only recently has Unior made a name in cycling tools beyond its surrounding European nations – certainly helped by sponsoring the likes of Team Sky, Movistar, Trek-Segafredo, Deceuninck–Quick-Step and its own Unior Tools World Cup downhill mountain bike team.

For those in the United States, Unior tools feature red and orange handles.

Unior was quick to enter the US cycling market, but quickly found itself unable to sell tools in a market where Park Tool owns a trademark for blue cycling tools. To get around this, Unior introduced red/orange tools for the US market in 2015, while other markets remain with blue, a colour Unior had used for its handtools since 1991.

I give all this background about Unior’s European manufacturing simply because the tools are priced well above the other kits (which typically feature tools made in Taiwan or China) I’ve tested recently. The US$404 / AU$699 price tag on the Pro Home kit will be a hard pill for many to swallow, especially given it includes just 18 tools.

What’s included

The 18 included tools are centred around repairing modern-day road and mountain bikes. This kit pleasingly lacks the somewhat dated headset spanners, crank pullers, cone wrenches (still needed for many Shimano hubs) and freewheel removal tools still found in a number of other kits. Instead, every single tool provided is likely to be used when working on quality bikes of today.

What’s provided is ready for professional use, too. The cassette tool features its own integrated handle, as does the external bottom bracket tool (also good for oversized centerlock brake lockrings), and both feature extremely generous length handles with comfortable shaping. Leverage is no issue here.

The cassette tools are excellent and will work with (nearly) all modern Shimano and SRAM setups.

There’s no chain whip for removing a cassette. Instead, Unior provide its “Freewheel removal tool”, a simple tool that fits in with either the 11 or 12T cog of your cassette. Such a design has long been proven by Stein (the original) and more recently Pedro’s, with some mechanics unwilling to use anything else. This and the matched cassette tool were my favourite items in the kit to use.

For chain maintenance, Unior provides its high-quality Pro Chain Tool, and chain link pliers too – two items that I’ve tested separately and found joy in. Unior also supplies its quality drop-in chain checker, a handy tool for preventing drivetrain destruction that offers staggered chain wear indication. And should your shifting go haywire, a quality pair of cable cutters is supplied.

Disc brake users will likely find use in the pad/piston press and rotor straightening tool – both doing the respective jobs nicely.

The included Y wrenches are some of the best available. The fit of the hex ends is top notch, as is the comfort.

While I missed not having a full set of L-shaped hex keys (I’ll come back to this), the three included Y-wrenches are extremely good. They’re comfortable, offer tight tolerances and wear well. These cover the sizes of 2-6mm hex, and T10, T15 and T25 Torx. There’s an acceptably long 8mm L-wrench provided for pedals and crank bolts, too.

The one odd addition is that of the Pocket truing tool. This item attaches via its velcro strap to a seatstay, chainstay or fork to assist with trueing a wheel on the bike. It certainly works, but a zip-tie can perform much the same task.

Another tool with great leverage. The included external bottom bracket wrench is ready for serious use.

Rounding out the kit are a quality Phillips #2 and flat blade screwdriver, a pair of Unior’s impressively good tyre levers, a Campagnolo-inspired multi spoke wrench and a Shimano Hollowtech bearing preload cap tool which is magnetically attached to the bottom bracket wrench.

Many of the tools are chrome plated for surface protection. It’s not the usual mirror-finish associated with chrome plating, but rather a rougher finish that is a common sight amongst other European tool manufacturers such as Gedore and Stahlwille.

All of these tools are housed within a compact and high-quality plastic case. Each tool is carefully stored and shadowed within a laser cut foam inlay – something Unior does better than anyone else in the cycling industry. It’s all done to a visually appealing level, but as I’ll soon explain, I don’t love it.

The whole package sits within a compact case. That’s an iPhone 7 pictured, for scale.

At 3.41kg and only 380 x 330 x 95mm, this kit is light and small enough to stick under a car seat or carry into an event, so if you’re seeking such a thing for mobile mechanics, then this or the cheaper Feedback Sports Team Edition kit could be right.

What’s missing

The simple truth of pre-assembled service kits is that the contents will never please everyone. No matter how good a kit is, I always find myself not needing one or two items and wanting others. And that also applies here.

There’s a good number of useful tools here, but the nature of bicycles means there is always going to be something missing.

The mix of tools leaves little wasted space and I was able to get my way through a number of bikes without having to reach for many extras. Notably, a small pick for seals and opening cable housing remains a tool that only Feedback Sports has thought to include in a kit of this level. Ditto for the valve core tool (or a pair of pliers).

The Y-wrenches are great, but there are times where a basic set of L-shaped keys are needed to fit into cramped spaces. Similarly, I haven’t needed a Torx T15 in recent memory, meanwhile, I was left scratching my head when trying to understand why Unior left out the T30 which is widely used for chainring bolts.

Most quality pedals use an 8mm hex for installational and removal, but some require a 6mm hex, and others a 15mm pedal wrench. The included 6mm hex is on a Y-wrench and lacks the leverage required for pedals. Again, I miss not having a basic set of hex keys. And then if you do require a pedal wrench, well, Unior completely left that one out of the kit. Hey, it’s not like people actually use Speedplay or older pedals, right?

The Pocket truing tool works, but so does a zip-tie, or even a key key held still against the frame in a pinch.

The included truing tool frustrated me. It takes up so much room within the foam layout, and has a habit of dropping out everytime the case is opened. It also doesn’t strap onto thin frame tubes with the security I want when truing a wheel, and I’d sooner reach for a zip-tie around the frame if a truing stand weren’t available. Speaking of which, with the exception of the cable cutters, there’s nothing to cut zip-ties or trim bar tape with.

If there was one tool Unior should consider leaving out, it’s the truing tool, and it would free up plenty of space for more useful additions.

Unior also recently announced a new disc brake tool which combines the rotor truing fork and pad spreader into one. I’m sure they’ll eventually update the kit to include it, but for now, your money (and case space) is going toward two tools.

And while I’m nitpicking, the included Shimano crank preload cap tool works, but a few extra millimeters added to the spline length would see it not scratch a bunch of cranks that countersink this bolt.

And with a few small tools missing, that quality storage case and its fixed tool layout is all but a waste. As mentioned in the Park Tool Advanced Mechanic tool kit review, it’s hard to beat a basic toolbox that allows space to grow and customise. No doubt, someone using tools of this quality will have their hands on more tools – it’d be nice if the case they were paying for offered such space.

Lots to like, but a tall ask

Many of the included tools you’ll use the most are made to a professional quality and with great comfort, and I’d have no qualms in using them on a daily basis. Unior certainly knows steel, and many of the tools are comparable to the professional line from that other blue tool brand. Add in a lifetime warranty on the tools, and certainly, these tools will be good to pass onto the next generation.

At an average cost of over US$22 / AU$38 a tool, this kit speaks to a specific market. In my opinion, that market is users seeking professional-quality tools for a strong foundation in building a toolset that should last a lifetime, regardless of whether that’s personal or professional use. However, given you’re also paying for a velcro-based truing tool and a limited storage case – I can’t help but suggest to just buy the best bits of this kit separately.

Tools included:

• 2, 2.5, 3mm hex Y-wrench
• 4, 5, 6mm hex Y-wrench
• T10, T15, T30 Torx Y-wrench
• Pro chain tool
• Master link pliers
• Pro chain wear indicator
• 16-notch bottom bracket tool
• Shimano crank cap tool
• Cable housing and wire cutter
• Disc brake spreader
• Disc rotor trueing fork
• Triple spoke wrench
• Pocket wheel truing tool
• Cassette lockring tool with guide pin
• Freewheel remover (replaces chain whip)
• Pair of resin tyre levers
• #2 Phillips screwdriver
• Flat blade screwdriver

Gallery

A close look at the bottom section of the Pro Home kit.

The top half of the Pro Home kit holds many of the smaller tools. Annoyingly, the Pocket truing tool often falls out.

The case may be entirely plastic, but it’ll last nicely.

The Home Pro Kit comes with minimal packaging, but there’s no mistaking who makes it.

The Unior bottom bracket wrench is generously long and features a smaller head to avoid clearance issues.

The Pocket Truing tool is somewhat clever, but isn’t needed.

The foam shadowing is some of the very best, and certainly, you won’t find better within cycling tool offerings.

The chain tools are a good example of the general quality on offer. They’re ready for professional use.

Similarly, the included cable cutters do the task with comfort and control.

The chain wear indicator offers etching to show different levels of wear. It requires a more careful eye, but does allow you to more closely monitor a chain before it becomes worn.

There are a number of tools within Unior’s cycling line that directly pull from other industries. Hex keys are such an example, even if the Y-wrench combination is a cycling-specific item.

The post Unior Pro Home Set tool kit review appeared first on CyclingTips.