I’ve been a pretty big fan of Shimano’s PD-A600 single-sided pedal for mixed-terrain riding, as it offers the sleek form factor and low weight of a proper road pedal, but with the walkability of mountain bike pedals. And so I was excited when I found out that Shimano had developed a successor in the PD-ES600, promising the same level of convenience, but potentially correcting the minor issues I had with the PD-A600.

But alas, it feels like someone at Shimano opted to phone this one in instead of doing the proper rework that the concept deserves.

A mild tweak

At first glance, the new PD-ES600 pedals certainly look like a pretty significant update on the old PD-A600, which was first introduced a decade ago. The aluminum bodies are smaller and more compact, and at 282g per pair (without cleats) the pedals are a bit lighter as a result — a decrease of 10g in total. For the sake of comparison, a pair of Shimano XTR Race dual-sided SPD pedals comes in at 310g per pair, and Shimano’s PD-R7000 105-level road pedals are 265g.

Shimano has upgraded the axle seals, too, for even better wet-weather durability.

Nevertheless, the retail price has actually dropped a bit, to a very reasonable US$100 / AU$126 / £62 / €57.

As compared to the previous PD-A600 pedals (left), the newer PD-ES600 version (right) has a notably smaller body. It’s lighter as a result, but that weight loss unfortunately brings some unintended downsides.

Apart from the clipped tail, the PD-ES600 is otherwise nearly identical to the PD-A600, and for the most part, that’s a good thing. The important part of the body is similarly wide, the underside is admirably sleek, there’s the same proven SPD adjustable retention system, and despite the burlier seals, the cartridge axle system is just as easy to service as ever.

The problem is that Shimano should have left some parts alone, and should have added things that weren’t.

As before, that wide body lends excellent support when matched to suitable XC-style footwear (such as the Specialized S-Works Recon that I used for much of this testing). Provided the tread blocks aren’t overly worn, there’s no noticeable out-of-plane rocking during hard pedaling efforts — and in fact, the stability is so good that I rarely gave second thought to the idea that I wasn’t using a dedicated road shoe and pedal.

The PD-ES600’s ability to clear mud, snow, and debris is vastly superior to any conventional road setup, though, and even when my shoes were caked in muck, I could still clip in.

View this post on Instagram

My pair of @iamspecialized S-Works Recon shoes isn’t quite as bright and shiny as it was when it got here.

A post shared by James Huang (@angryasian) on Feb 13, 2019 at 3:08pm PST

Those sorts of conditions highlighted further the durability of Shimano’s bulletproof cartridge axle design, too. Whereas that sort of persistent abuse can prompt an immediate rebuild on lesser systems, I haven’t yet needed to clean out any debris, or re-lube the internals. I even pulled the axle out for a quick inspection just prior to writing this review, and the original grease still looks as fresh and clean as the day it left the factory.

So what’s not to like?

By lopping off the rear loop on the body, Shimano also eliminated most of the counterweight that helps the pedal hang at the perfect angle for re-engagement. When combined with the new, tighter-fitting seals, the PD-ES600 pedals just don’t want to hang at an angle conducive to clipping in, even after several hundred kilometers of use. As a result, I found myself pawing at these far more than I did with the PD-A600s — a minor nuisance most of the time, but occasionally the difference between walking and riding if things got unusually technical.

The wide body provides plenty of support when matched with XC-style shoes. That support is subject to tread wear, though, and will certainly degrade with time.

I was also really hoping that Shimano would have added stainless steel wear plates to the body, not only to prevent any unsightly scuffing, but to help make the rotational float feel a little more fluid. There’s a cosmetic argument to be made here, too. Just as with the PD-A600s, the PD-ES600s look nice when new, but it doesn’t take long for the paint to wear away, leaving the PD-ES600 pedals looking a lot worse than their stubbornly competent performance would otherwise suggest.

Shimano labels the PD-ES600 as “Ultegra-level” pedals, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a similarly durable finish, and an anodized surface and steel plates would go a long way toward supplying that. Considering Shimano even includes those wear plates on its budget-friendly PD-R550 road pedals, this isn’t a big ask.

Crossing my fingers for version 2.1

I am normally in favor of things getting lighter instead of heavier, but in this case, I would have been happy for Shimano to add a few grams to the PD-A600 instead of pointlessly cleaving a handful of them away to create the PD-ES600. That rearward loop actually served a purpose, after all, and I certainly wouldn’t have complained if a pair of stainless steel wear plates tacked on another 15-20g or so.

Shimano has upgraded the seals on the PD-ES600 (top) relative to its PD-A600 predecessor.

But alas, instead we’re left with a rare case of an older model being better than a newer model. The good news? The PD-A600 is still available, and appears to be on sale just about everywhere. So if you’re after a set of single-sided SPD pedals for mixed terrain, save yourself the trouble and buy those instead.

bike.shimano.com

Photo gallery:

Single-sided SPD pedals aren’t for everyone, and there’s a strong argument to be made for just using the conventional dual-sided versions typically used for mountain biking. But if you prefer a sleeker form factor, a lower weight, and better cornering clearance for mixed-terrain riding, these make a lot of sense.

The cartridge-style axle is extremely easy to service. Just use a single wrench to remove the assembly, inject some fresh grease into the pedal body, and then screw it all back together.

Release tension is adjustable, just as you’d expect.

The low-profile body is less likely to catch on rocks if you’re apt to really get after it on your mixed-terrain bike, and also less likely to drag on the tarmac if you’re one to pedal through corners.

Shimano’s SH51 cleat has been unchanged for decades – a rare point of stability in the fickle world of cycling gear.

The post Shimano PD-ES600 Ultegra SPD pedal review: Lost opportunities appeared first on CyclingTips.

Have you ever walked out of a store after a purchase and felt like you got away with something? Like the clerk had only charged you for two apples instead of the six you actually had? That’s pretty much how I feel every time I wear Pearl Izumi’s new Tour lace-up road shoes.

As I’m sure several of the folks who work at Pearl Izumi (past and present) will attest, I’ve had a somewhat contentious relationship with the company. Years ago, one of their clothing designers dismissed as unfair a negative review I’d written about some winter tights, saying that I had a “swimmer’s build” that their clothing wasn’t meant to fit (which apparently means that the medium Castelli kit that fits me just fine is meant more for the pool, not the bike).

Then there was the X-Project cross-country/trail shoe that I picked as one of my favorite products of the year, on account of its clever walkable sole. But then in a more recent road shoe review, I panned the company’s “stubborn commitment to a material that just doesn’t work that well.”

My biggest complaint with Pearl Izumi has had more to do with its lack of consistency: some products were fantastic, but others were woefully inadequate. And to this day, I still have some issues with their sizing. But I don’t have any issues whatsoever with Pearl Izumi’s latest Tour road shoes, which I hope signal a strong future for the long-running cycling apparel and footwear brand.

No frills = no financial heartache

Pearl Izumi isn’t trying to wow anyone with its Tour shoes, instead aiming for a simple formula and solid execution. The one-piece microfiber uppers are entirely seamless aside from a single stitch up the back of the heel cup, the lace-up configuration could hardly be more straightforward, and down below is a bargain-friendly fiber-reinforced nylon sole, instead of the lighter, stiffer, and thinner true carbon fiber composite plates used at higher price points.

The laces run slightly off-center to help alleviate pressure on top of your feet. When combined with the soft upper material, the Tour shoes are definitely very comfortable for long days in the saddle.

The uppers are refreshingly free of unnecessary adornments with minimal and subtle branding throughout, and the company doesn’t assign a bunch of marketing drivel or buzzwords to any various “features”. Instead, it’s more like quiet competence, like how the laces are offset across the top of your foot to alleviate pressure, and the classy stripe pattern to the ventilation-enhancing perforations. Rather than make up some fancy new heel cup device, Pearl Izumi instead just sticks to a conventional internal counter and a nicely thought-out shape.

And while that fiber-reinforced nylon sole is intended primarily to save money, there’s still a proper carbon fiber plate where it matters, right under the cleat area — which, by the way, accepts both two-bolt and three-bolt cleats, depending on your preferences.

Even the insole, while basic, is nicely shaped, and if red laces aren’t your thing, Pearl Izumi includes black ones in the box, too, all for the wallet-friendly price of US$130 / £130 / €130. Pearl Izumi also makes a women’s version called the Sugar, with a specific last and different colors. But sadly, neither the Tour nor the Sugar is available in Australia.

To keep costs down, Pearl Izumi equips the Tour road shoe with a fiber-reinforced nylon sole, which is augmented with a proper carbon fiber plate under the cleat area. The Tour is definitely not the stiffest shoe around, but most riders should find it more than adequate. The flexibility to run two-bolt or three-bolt cleats is nice to see, too.

Actual weight for my size 43.5 samples is a respectable 526g per pair.

On the road

My go-to road shoes over the past few years have been a pair of well-used Specialized S-Works Sub6 lace-ups: supple and comfortable, supportive, good-looking, lightweight, very stiff.

If I told you that the Pearl Izumi Tour shoes were every bit as good as those pricey S-Works kicks … well, I’d be lying. But that said, I’ve been shocked by how comparable they are in many respects.

The uppers are completely seamless, aside from this one stitch up the back of the heel cup.

Most important is how similarly to the S-Works the Tour fits. The heel cup isn’t quite as tight, but it’s pleasantly snug and holds on tight. The pliable uppers and lace-up format provide a shrink-wrapped feel, and the roomy forefoot area won’t cut off blood flow to your toes. The Pearl Izumi shoes are a touch roomier through the midsection than Specialized’s more racing-focused S-Works Sub6 shoes, but it’s not something many are likely to find at all objectionable.

Provided you don’t go crazy when pulling the laces, the offset patterning and lightly padded tongue really do do a great job of minimizing pressure across the top of your feet, too, and there’s enough give in the uppers that I didn’t find myself needing to make any adjustments mid-ride, either. Overall, the feel of the uppers is more one of soft and coddling comfort as opposed to structured support. Race shoes these are not, but if you’re primarily after a comfortable and secure fit, and all-day happiness, these will likely fit the bill.

I’ve occasionally had issues with breathability on Pearl Izumi shoes, but the simple perforated microfiber uppers on the Tour model get the job done nicely — or, rather, I’m pretty sure they do. To be honest, these shoes arrived in early January, and although winter in Boulder, Colorado doesn’t resemble the icy planet of Hoth nearly as much as many might think, it hasn’t exactly been roasting here, either.

That said, I’ve always found that shoes that worked well in hot conditions also feel uncomfortably chilly even on moderately cold days, and let’s just say that the shoe covers have seen regular use since I started testing these.

A generous array of perforations keeps your feet cool on warmer days – but also perhaps a little chillier than ideal when it’s cold outside.

Specialized is one of the best brands out there in terms of arch support, and these Tour shoes aren’t quite a match in that regard. There’s a fair bit of support built into the sole plate itself, and a bit extra coming from the standard insoles. However, riders that need a little extra in that department — myself included — will likely want to turn to something a bit more aggressive. I ended up using a pair of custom-fit Specialized/Retül insoles and couldn’t have been happier, although semi-custom ones from G8 Performance also worked well.

As expected, the hybrid-construction sole doesn’t feel as stout as true carbon fiber units when you’re really pushing hard, but the two-piece sole Pearl Izumi uses on the Tour worked better than I expected. Under more typical tempo-pace outputs, most riders would be hard-pressed to tell the difference. And in fact, some long-distance riders might actually find the modest amount of flex to be more comfortable during longer days. Either way, there’s a generous amount of fore-aft adjustability in the cleat holes, as well as clear markings to help with positioning.

Overall, I found the Tour shoes to be pretty remarkable, especially for the price. But given the option, there are still a few things I’d change here.

The sole appears well ventilated from the outside, but most of the mesh area is obscured by the lasting board.

For one, the lace keeper is positioned awkwardly in between the eyelets, and doesn’t always sit as neatly as I’d like. And while the outsole is fitted with two big mesh vents, a look inside the shoe reveals that much of that area is obscured by the lasting board.

The two-tone, white-on-white upper finish is also nearly impossible to keep looking clean, especially if you’re as prone to venturing off-tarmac as I am. And I always like to see replaceable heel treads on road cycling shoes, even at more modest price points.

Aside from those minor complaints, though, these definitely get my stamp of approval, and the reasonable price only makes me like them even more.

Nicely done, Pearl Izumi. Now let’s try to keep up this momentum, eh?

www.pearlizumi.com

Photo gallery

Pearl Izumi’s Tour road shoes sport a classic style, a very reasonable price, and surprisingly good performance – provided you’re not after all-out stiffness.

The lace keeper is somewhat awkwardly placed (and hard to grab), but it does the job. And if red laces aren’t your thing, Pearl Izumi includes a set of black laces as well.

The heel tread isn’t replaceable, but it’s generously sized and grippy on hard surfaces like tile.

The perforations in the upper help with ventilation, but also readily let water in if you’re caught in the rain.

The standard insoles incorporate some additional arch and midfoot support, but are still fairly basic.

The post Pearl Izumi Tour shoe review: Solid performance, classy styling, great value appeared first on CyclingTips.

The Camerig is a climb in the Netherlands that rises 145m over 3.6km with an average gradient of 4%. It is also the name that Zeal has chosen for its mid-profile (44mm) carbon wheelset.

While the parallels between the two may not be immediately obvious, in the eyes of Zeal, their new wheels are as well suited to puncheurs as that climb (which has appeared in the Amstel Gold in the past). On paper, all of the necessary elements, such as an aerodynamic rim profile and a relatively low weight, appear to be present, so what can buyers expect? Australian tech editor Matt Wikstrom shares his thoughts in this in-depth review of the Camerig 44.

Zeal was founded in the Netherlands by two friends in 2016. The company’s genesis was simple enough: Roland Ten Brinke and Daniel Bley met each other while working in the industry and decided to have a crack at starting a new business.

The two Dutchmen had a lot in common, including a passion for racing and bringing exciting products to market. Both started out working in local shops before they were recruited by companies like SRAM and Canyon, where they were drawn towards sales and marketing roles. At one point, Daniel was the head of marketing and sales at Canyon while Roland was one of the founders of FFWD Wheels.

It was NuVinci’s novel planetary hub that brought Daniel and Roland together in 2013, when they joined Fallbrook International as the directors of marketing and sales, respectively. Both men enjoyed the change of focus, but in time, they started to miss the performance-oriented part of the market.

Some of the discussions that lead to the formation of Zeal took place while Roland and Daniel were riding their bikes. “The decision to start another wheel brand wasn’t an easy one,” explained Ten Brincke. “Daniel and I had long conversations (off and on the bike) about the products we wanted to launch first, and about what Zeal stands for.”

Given their experience with Canyon and FFWD, it’s not really surprising that Roland and Daniel decided to build Zeal around wheels and customer-direct online sales. However, they have big ambitions for Zeal, referring to it as a component brand rather than a wheel brand. “We’re looking into the development of other products as well,” said Ten Brincke, “and this has been the goal right from the beginning.”

For the time being, though, wheels remain front and centre for Zeal. It’s familiar territory for Ten Brincke, of course, but from the outset, he was committed to bringing something new and distinct to the market. “It’s not a big secret that it’s relatively easy to get many models of rims from Asia, stick your brand on it and put them in a nice online shop. We chose to go through the development process of a unique rim profile first and to use our own moulds.”

This is what lead to the creation of the Camerig 44, Zeal’s vision for an aerodynamic road racing wheelset that features a 44mm carbon rim. That alone is nothing new or distinct, but take a closer a look at the rim, and rather than a familiar U-shaped profile, the Camerig 44 sports an unusual kamm tail-inspired shape.

A different take on aerodynamic rim design

A kamm tail, for the uninitiated, is formed by chopping the tail off an airfoil. In its absence, the aerodynamics of the truncated foil are largely preserved, so it’s a good strategy for saving weight. There’s also less surface area that can be affected by crosswinds, while the squared-off section generally stiffens the structure.

While kamm tails have been utilised by the automotive industry since the 1930s, the bike industry has only been experimenting with them for less than ten years. Now, most aero road frames make use of kamm tails. In contrast, aero road rims have adhered to the wide U-shaped (semi-toroidal) profile pioneered by HED and Zipp at the turn of the century.

In developing the Camerig 44, Zeal collaborated with Dave Luycx, a Belgian engineer with eight years experience designing aero frames, forks and handlebars, to see if a kamm tail had anything to offer aero rim design.

The short answer was: perhaps. Having already spent time in this realm, Ten Brinke knew that aerodynamic performance of a wheel generally tracked very closely with the height of the rim. He also understood that it was very difficult to measure a difference between one rim profile and another in the real world. That’s why wind tunnel testing was eschewed in favour of computer-aided simulations.

Luycx performed a variety of simulations with a series of rim shapes, and that was where he found that a kamm tail could behave like a sail to add some speed to the bike. “Our computer simulations and field tests show that our rims are amongst the fastest on the market when looking at this effect, where the rider is basically being pushed forward, just like a sail boat,” said Ten Brincke.

Zeal does not put a number on this effect, which will frustrate aero-weenies, and the company makes no specific claims for its wheels. Aside from the expense required to generate this sort of data, Ten Brincke believes it is often over-emphasised in the name of marketing. “All those tests which have been done in the past by other wheel brands and magazines clearly show that the aerodynamics of all rims with similar depths are very close to each other. Most of them wouldn’t even be published because of the fact that the differences were so small and within the margin of error of each other.”

Thus, potential buyers will have to be content with the vague promise that the Camerig 44 may be as good as any other 45mm rim on the market. As for the argument that a kamm tail will hinder the wheel when it forms the leading edge of the wheel, “In theory that is correct,” said Ten Brincke, “but the airflow behind the frontal part of the wheel has been disturbed so much already by the fork and spokes, that the potential negative effect isn’t really there.”

Zeal places more emphasis on the quality of the leading edge of the wheel where the width of the tyre will have a noticeable impact. “It is important to us that our product is understood as a system of wheel and tyre,” said Daniel Bley, “because the interaction of the components has a great impact on the performance.”

If the tyre overhangs the rim, it will create extra turbulence, drag, and even some instability. Thus, for those looking to maximise the aerodynamic performance of any wheel, the tyre must be ~5% narrower than the rim. In the case of the Camerig 44 clincher rim, which is 25mm wide at the brake track, that limits the width of the tyre to 24mm once it is inflated.

Of course, buyers are free to use wider tyres. Zeal has gone to the trouble of preparing a table of rankings to provide some insight on how different tyres will influence the performance of the Camerig 44, not only in terms of aerodynamics, but comfort, stability, and rolling resistance, too. In absolute terms, the distinctions will be a matter of nuance, but it emphasises how tyre choice can be used to tune the performance of wheels.

More details on the rim

The dimensions of the Camerig 44 rim are quite generous. As mentioned above, the rim is 25mm wide at the tyre interface, which flares out to 28mm near the spoke nipples. When coupled with the squared-off profile, it makes for a very thick and chunky rim that won’t be mistaken for any other brand.

Zeal has created the Camerig 44 rim in two versions, one to suit tubular tyres, and another for tubeless/clincher tyres. For the latter, the rim has an internal width of 19.6mm, a nice broad size that will create a wide contact patch for the tyre, and generally increase the measured width of any road tyre.

The Camerig 44 is also available to suit rim or disc brakes. As has become the norm, the rim brake version has a heat-resistant brake track, and buyers must use Zeal’s brake pad of choice, SwissStop’s Black Prince, for the life of the wheels or void the company’s warranty.

Zeal does not go into any detail on the carbon fibre or the resin that is used to construct the rim. The company promises that the tubular version weighs 370g, while the clincher rim is 450g. Those numbers compare well with established products such as Zipp’s 303, Enve’s SES 4.5 rims, and even Light Bicycle’s U-shaped 45mm clincher rim.

An attractive and hard wearing build

Zeal makes use of DT Swiss 240s hubs, Sapim bladed spokes, and external brass nipples to build the Camerig 44. It’s a pleasing combination of fuss-free components, and the understated branding makes for an attractive and stealthy wheelset.

DT’s 240s hubs are proven performers, and while some may dismiss them as outdated (or just familiar), they are very robust and easy to service. Straight-pull flanges add a modern touch to the hubs, while DT’s modular design makes it easy to swap one freehub body for another.

The front wheel is laced with 20 spokes in a radial pattern.

External brass nipples promise to be highly weather-resistant.

DT’s 240s front hub is easy to service.

Each end cap pops off the axle.

The deep-set bearings means that water has to travel further before it can foul the bearings.

Zeal’s hub logos are laser-etched.

Sapim straight-pull CX-Ray spokes are used to lace the front wheel and the non-drive side of the rear wheel, while the drive-side is laced with CX-Sprint spokes. The latter has a broader (2.25mm vs 2.20mm) and thicker (1.25mm vs 0.9mm) blade for extra stiffness that adds a little extra weight, too (~1g/spoke).

The spoke count and lacing pattern for the front wheel varies depending upon the braking system: 20 spokes in a radial pattern for rim brake versions compared to 24 spokes and a two-cross pattern for disc brake versions. The back wheel is built with 24 spokes in a two-cross pattern, regardless of the braking system.

Brass nipples round out what can be considered a pretty robust and enduring build. Weight weenies will complain about the extra weight, but brass is less likely to suffer from all-weather use. In this instance, Zeal have opted for Sapim’s brass Polyax nipples with so-called ‘Secure Lock’ to stop them from unwinding.

Options, limits, weight, and price

For those considering the Camerig 44, there is a choice of rim or disc brakes, tubular or tubeless/clincher tyres, and one of three freehub bodies (11-speed Shimano/SRAM; 11/12-speed Campagnolo; and 11/12-speed SRAM XD-R), all for the one price, AU$2,000 | US$NA | €1,399. An upgrade to CeramicSpeed bearings is available for the hubs, which adds an extra €400.

The rear is laced with 24 spokes in a two-cross pattern.

Zeal provides a choice of three freehub bodies: Shimano 11-speed, Campagnolo 11/12-speed, and SRAM XD-R 11/12-speed.

The end caps pop off the rear axle just like the front.

An axle vice might be required to provide a firm enough grip on the cap.

Another deep-set bearing for extra weather-proofing.

The freehub body is perhaps easier to remove because the is more to hold onto.

There’s no need to worry about pawls and springs falling out of a 240s rear hub.

The two silver discs serve the core of DT’s Ratchet System.

There is a large spring on each side of the ratchet rings. The orientation of each spring is critical.

18-tooth ratchet rings provide an angle of engagement of 20°.

Unsurprisingly, the tubular versions of the Camerig 44 are the lightest, 1,320g and 1,380g for the rim- and disc-brake versions, respectively. By contrast, the clincher versions are claimed to weigh 1,480g/1,499g for rim/disc brakes (without tape or valves). Those numbers seem reliable since the rim brake clincher sent for review weighed 1,526g (front, 692g; rear, 834g) with rim tape and tubeless valves.

Every Camerig 44 wheelset is shipped with a pair of wheel bags along with a 6-year warranty and a 30-day return policy. Rim tape and tubeless valves are included with all clinchers, while rim brake versions are supplied with a pair of skewers and two pairs of SwissStop Black Prince pads.

Buyers are free to use Camerig 44 wheels on the road as well as gravel and cyclocross. There is a weight limit, though; 100kg for rim brake versions and 120kg for disc brake versions. In both instances, that weight includes the rider and the bike as well as any equipment that is being carried.

Finally, the maximum tyre pressure that can be used with the clinchers is 130psi/9bar; tubular versions are restricted to manufacturer recommendations for any chosen tyre.

Out of the box

The simplest test for the quality of any wheel build is to give it a spin to see how round and true it is. It’s a quick and intuitive test, but a round and true wheel can disguise a bigger problem if the spoke tension is uneven. Uneven tension creates uneven loading of the spokes as the wheel is put to use, which over time, will accelerate spoke fatigue leading to premature breakage.

The Camerig 44 wheelset sent for review was round and true, and spoke tension for the front wheel and drive-side of the rear wheel was good, averaging ~95kgf with 10% variation. The non-drive-side tension was lower, as expected, but there was more variation, with values ranging from 40-60kgf.

The extra variation in tension on the non-drive-side spokes is not uncommon, especially when wheels are built quickly with an emphasis on achieving low values for the lateral and radial rollout of the wheel. Striving for even spoke tension on this side of the wheel while keeping the wheel round and true takes extra time – sometimes a lot of time – which can be difficult to justify.

“It’s our experience that it’s best to focus on getting equal tension on all front spokes and the drive-side spokes of the rear wheel,” said Ten Brincke, “to make sure that the forces which are put on the spokes are evenly divided, which will limit the risk of spoke breakage to a minimum. Until today we have had zero spokes breaking and we have some quite large and heavy riders using them in some of the markets here.”

This is where Zeal’s choice of a high quality spoke — Sapim’s CX-Ray — makes a difference, since the non-drive-side spokes will be able to endure more rounds of uneven loading before they break. Be that as it may, the wheel will enjoy a longer life if it is re-tensioned. I needed about 30 min to even out the non-drive-side tension so that the variation was less than 10%.

Up hill and down dale

The Camerig 44 wheelset was put to use after a set of 25mm Schwalbe Pro One tubeless tyres were fitted. These tyres were a tight fit, but that was mostly due to the fresh rim tape that needed bedding in. On the flip side, that tight fit actually helped the tubeless tyres inflate quickly with a floor pump, and there were no issues with leaks from the tyres or the valves.

Once inflated to 55psi, the tyres measured 27mm wide, which as discussed above, had the potential to affect the aerodynamics of the wheel as well as stability in crosswinds. This is something that I will come back to, but for now, it’s worth noting that I spent the majority of the review period using 25mm Pro Ones.

Overall, the Camerig 44 performed as advertised by offering a bit of speed on the flats without ever feeling like a burden on any slope, just like many other mid-profile carbon wheelsets such as Roval’s CLX 50, Campagnolo’s Bora 50, DT Swiss’ ERC 1100 DICUT, Wheelworks Maker 50, and even Prime’s BlackEdition 50. In broad terms, the Camerig 44 compared well with all of these wheels, but there were some nuances in performance worth discussing.

To start with, the Camerig 44s were better in the hills than I expected. A mid-profile wheelset will never be as agile, or offer the same snappy acceleration on a slope, as low-profile wheels, but I never felt like the Camerig 44s were a handicap when climbing. As for smaller, sharper climbs (like its namesake), these wheels were well suited to maintaining high speeds on undulating terrain.

Zeal’s quick-release skewers are minimal offerings that are effective, but the common external cam design generally lacks bite.

The only thing that can ruin the performance of a mid-profile wheel is the wind. Any wheel with a rim that is 45-50mm tall will suffer some unwanted deflection in crosswinds, so I wasn’t surprised when the Camerig 44 behaved the same way. Crosswinds tugged and pulled at the front wheel, often unpredictably, especially when the wind was coming from the front. I often felt like I was slaloming down the road in moderate-strong winds, such that my arms, and attention, were often completely engaged by the effort to control the bike.

This effect was never so great as to cause me to swerve wildly, but strong gusts were unnerving. I live in a windy area, so there was very little respite until I was surfing along with a tailwind. Even then, the wind could still tug unpredictably at the front wheel, and that ultimately undermined my enjoyment of the wheels.

It was at this point that I swapped out the 25mm tyres for a set of 23mm tyres, to see if that had any effect on the stability of the wheels. In short, there was no great transformation, and while the front wheel might have been, at times, a little easier to control in crosswinds, the unpredictability remained.

That lead me to compare the Camerig 44 back-to-back with Campagnolo’s Bora 50, and on the same day with the same bike, it was clear that Zeal’s wheels were more difficult to handle in crosswinds. That’s not to say that the Bora 50s were unaffected by the wind; rather, they simply required less effort to hold a straight line.

On paper, a 50mm rim should be more susceptible to crosswinds than a 44mm rim, if only by a fraction, so the results of this comparison are a little damning for the Camerig 44. I can only guess at the reason for this. At the same time, not all riders may have the same experience, since other factors, such as position and steering geometry can have an influence on the handling of a wheel.

On those days when the wind wasn’t gusting, the Camerig 44s were a pleasure to use. Aside from the pleasing all-around performance, the wheels were quite welcoming and comfortable, too. There was no undue rigidity or road buzz, nor was there any excess lateral movement under load, and the chunky rim shape produced a throaty rumble on the road.

As for the quality of braking, it was satisfactory, if not quite good, matching much of the market has to offer. Zipp’s ShowStopper and Campagnolo’s AC3 brake tracks continue to shine brightest in this regard, though this is only relevant for riders that prefer rim brakes. Some extra hand force was required compared to alloy rims, but there was plenty of rim bite on offer, albeit with some squealing from the pads.

Summary and final thoughts

Zeal has created a distinctive mid-profile carbon wheelset with an appealing set of parts, however the final product lacks the refinement of a more mature product. In absolute terms, this may only be a matter of nuance, but it can colour a buyer’s experience. This is where established brands have more to offer, though these products are typically more expensive.

For those riders looking for a competitive edge, the extra expense may be easy to justify. For everybody else, it will require a leap of faith, or at the very least, a test ride. Even then, not every edge in performance or point of refinement will be relevant to all buyers. Indeed, other factors, such as brand appeal and product presentation, may carry more weight.

In this regard, the Camerig 44 has its strengths. This wheelset has a unique aesthetic that is bolstered by a 30-day return policy, six-year warranty, and time-proven hubs and spokes. As for the weaknesses — poor crosswind stability and uneven non-drive-side spoke tension — these are not unique to Zeal’s wheels. In fact, there is no guarantee that spending more will eliminate the risk of either. For those that would rather avoid the former, then a far more effective approach is to choose a low-profile rim, which is where Zeal’s Randa 35 has more to offer, including a cheaper asking price.

The post Zeal Camerig 44 carbon clincher review appeared first on CyclingTips.

It was hardly a secret that Campagnolo would upgrade its Super Record EPS electronic groupset to 12-speed; the company even told us that outright a few months ago, and sponsored riders have already been using it since the start of the season. But now it’s finally here, and we have all the details.

Updated Ergopower

Just like with previous EPS groupsets, many of the components are carried over from the mechanical version. But Campagnolo has overhauled nearly every EPS-specific part to create what feels like a pretty major step forward.

Updates to the new Ergopower levers are subtle, including a new texture on the Vari-Cushion rubber hoods and a new unidirectional finish on the carbon fibre brake lever blades. The double curve of the brake levers is carried over as well, and falls nicely into the hand with long blades that are easy to grasp with one or two fingers. It’s a fine design and something that I feel is a strong point within the groupset.

Inside – as you’d expect – the electronic and braking bits are the same as before. Campagnolo once again uses the dropped thumb lever from the previous generation of Ergopower for easier access from the drops, but now the paddle behind the brake lever is a little bigger and longer, too.

Of course, Campagnolo is offering the Super Record EPS Ergopower levers in both rim-brake and disc-brake versions, with little visual difference between the two other than 8mm of extra height on the hydraulic levers. Both versions have adjustable reach for the brake levers, and you can also adjust the lever throw for the disc-brake version, too. The rim brake Ergopower levers offer the ability to adjust reach of the blades to better accommodate differing hand sizes and preferences. Whereas the disc brake version incorporates not just the adjustable reach system but also allows for riders to tinker with custom performance. New algorithms let you Multi-Shift overall 12 gears with a single press and hold of the button. A job you’ll only need to undertake if you’ve really been caught out on a tricky road or situation.

Going deeper into the customization setting on the MyCampy app will allow you to configure your shifting set up, to the point where it theoretically could be possible to change all the gears with a single lever, front and back. And much like the previous version, derailleur adjustments can be made on-the-fly, too, with a handy button located just behind the thumb paddle on either Ergopower lever.

Claimed weight for the disc-brake levers is 381g per pair; the rim-brake ones are 280g.

The inner lever extends further down than before, but it still isn’t as easy to reach from the drops as Shimano or SRAM.

I found the hoods to be very comfortable.

No surprises on the new rear derailleur

Campagnolo’s electronic rear derailleurs have always been close analogues of the mechanical versions, with just a stepper motor in place of the usual cable and spring mechanisms. It’s no different this time around, and the new Super Record EPS rear derailleur brings along the same advancements as what Campag introduced a few months ago with the mechanical Super Record groupset.

“The lion’s share of the groupset is mechanically based; even the electronic groupset has three-quarters of its technology mechanical,” explained Campagnolo global marketing manager Joshua Riddle. “So if we have all the work done, it makes sense to go ahead and launch [the mechanical version], then work the successive year to electro-mechanise it.”

Technology that’s jumped across includes the new parallelogram geometry for increased chain wrap around each sprocket, and a longer pulley cage to handle the wider-range 12-speed cassettes; both the 11-29T and 11-32T cassettes work with the same derailleur. Pulleys have grown to 12-teeth each, with the upper one having taller and more squared-off teeth for better shifting precision, and the lower sporting a shallower profile for quieter running and reduced friction.

Wires are permanently bonded and sealed for a claimed IP67 waterproof rating. In real-world speak, Campagnolo says there’s zero chance of water getting in.

Material choice is as you’d expect from Campag’s flagship groupset, including a large swathe of carbon fibre, forged aluminium, and lightweight “technopolymer”. Claimed weight is just 234g.

Larger pulley wheels help the chain hug the cassette, and reduce overall drivetrain friction.

The new rear mech looks great, but it seems to shift slightly slower than the mechanical version.

Many of the features of the new Super Record EPS rear derailleur carry over from the mechanical version.

Subtle changes to the front derailleur

Just as the rear derailleur took advantage of the developments made for the latest mechanical Record and Super record groupsets, the front does the same. The main body, parallelogram links, and internal bits are all carried over, and once again, the cage is made of an aluminium inner plate and a carbon fibre outer one. That cage has been reshaped to work with the new 12-speed spacing, though, and combined with the automatic trim feature, Campag says the new front mech not only shifts better than ever, but also runs quietly regardless of gearing combination.

Molded carbon fibre construction on the body and titanium hardware help keep the claimed weight down to 132g.

Longer battery life, a new internal interface

Campagnolo has finally made more of an effort to clean up the wiring aesthetics a bit on its EPS electronic groupsets, with a new internal version of its wiring interface that can be hidden inside the end of the handlebar or tucked inside frames that have specific mounts built into them.

The standard interface is basically the same as before, and both versions have Bluetooth and ANT+ wireless hardware built-in to communicate with app-enabled smartphones or compatible computers.

Also new is the battery, which is now longer, but slimmer, to better fit into modern aero frames and seatposts. Charge capacity has gone up by 10%, according to Campag.

Shared 12-speed drivetrain bits and brakes

As already mentioned, the chainset, chainrings, chain, and cassette are all straight carryovers from the mechanical groupset version. You can find a deeper dive on those products in the feature we published from the 12-speed Record and Super Record mechanical groupset release.

To recap a bit, though, the new hollow carbon fibre chainset still looks impressive. It’s certainly modern in design, but perhaps a little too modern for some, especially with the additional carbon fibre reinforcements around the edges of the outer chainring on the Super Record version.

Chainring options include 53/39T, 52/36T, and 50/34T sizes, and Campag will offer the arms in 165, 170, 172.5, and 175mm lengths.

Cassette options are carried over, too, with the same 11-29T and 11-32T sizes that were announced with the mechanical 12-speed groupsets. Fans of smaller jumps between gears will be happy to know that there are just single-tooth jumps up to the 17T sprocket, and then either two- or three-tooth jumps throughout the rest.

As you’d expect, the 12-speed chain is narrower than the 11-speed one that came before it, but Campagnolo nevertheless claims that it offers the same durability while also shifting more smoothly.

Brakes are once again offered in both disc and rim versions, with both center-mount and direct-mount options for the rim-brake callipers. Disc versions get new longer-lasting organic pad compounds, though, as well as a new stainless steel spring to improve pad retraction and help prevent rotor rub.

The chainset is no different from the mechanical version.

Carbon extensions between the spider arms help stiffen up the chainrings for better shifting under load.

The disc brake callipers are no different to what is included in both the mechanical Record and Super Record groupsets.

There are new pad compounds, though, and also a new mechanical spring to help push the pads and pistons apart when you release the brake lever.

Campag doesn’t get enough credit for the performance of these brakes, which offer outstanding power, excellent control, and impressively quiet running.

There’s a slight hiss under braking, but it’s more pleasing than irritating, and certainly nowhere near an ear-piercing howl.

New medium-depth Bora aero carbon wheels, too

Campagnolo announced the Bora WTO 60 and Bora WTO 77 aero carbon wheels last year, and those will now be joined by a shallower Bora WTO 45 in both rim- and disc-brake variants.

Rim depth is – go figure – 45mm for greater crosswind stability and lower weight relative to the 60 and 77, and the 19mm inner width on the tubeless-compatible clincher is meant to be paired with 25-28mm tyres. Interestingly for Campag, there is no tubular version.

Disc-brake versions use splined rotor mounts, while rim-brake versions get Campagnolo’s AC3 etched sidewalls. Both feature Campagnolo’s trademark 3G triplet spoke lacing pattern for more even tensions from one side to the other, diamond-profile spoke cross-sections, and aluminium nipples. The aero-shaped aluminium hubs rotate on Campagnolo’s USB ceramic bearings.

It’s unlikely many people will complain about the stunning finish, with its clearcoated unidirectional surface and minimal graphics.

Claimed weight for the rim-brake version is 1,496g per pair (657g front; 893g rear). The disc version is 1,520g per set (708g front; 812g rear).

Prices and weights

Are you sitting down? You should sit down.

Given that it’s Campagnolo, and that Super Record EPS is the company’s flagship groupset, no one will expect that this will be remotely inexpensive to buy. But at US$4,636 / £4,108 / €4,677 for the disc version and US$4,327 / £4,292 / €3,800 for the rim-brake version, even the most dedicated Campagnolo fan will need deeper pockets than usual. When compared to the recently released SRAM Red eTap AXS, the new Super Record EPS disc-brake groupset works out to a roughly US$1,000 / £750 / €1000 premium. Adding the optional Red eTap AXS power meter cuts that gap in half, but Super Record EPS is still more expensive.

The rim-brake version is a bit more competitive, with roughly US$300 / £300 / €300 difference between the two groupsets. This is pretty much as expected from Campagnolo, but still a tough pill to swallow.

As for the weight, the disc version tips the scales all in at 2,502g, and the rim version is slightly lighter at 2,255g.

First-ride review

70km is hardly enough time to form a long-term view of any product – let alone a flagship groupset from a major manufacturer – but it’s at least sufficient for some solid initial impressions. We’ll hopefully get our hands on a long-term test sample at some point, but with that in mind, here are some early thoughts.

Basically, everything that has been carried over from the mechanical version I found a delight to use. The good-looking chainset seems plenty stiff, and the snappy front shifting works well under pressure. The automatic trim also works faultlessly, too, as there was never any chain rub.

We rode the same setup as what the Movistar team uses.

Rear shifting isn’t what I’d call exceptionally quiet or quick. As compared to the 12-speed mechanical groupsets, EPS seems to lag behind, especially once you get past that 7th (17-tooth) sprocket. Shifting down the cassette to smaller sprockets is noticeably smoother, but still not as snappy as you’d expect from a premium product. The timing of shifting I’m sure will get an update at some point via firmware again through the MyCampy app, but this initial impression could have been better.

One of Campagnolo’s recurring selling points in the presentation is its one-lever, one-function Ergopower design with completely separate levers that each perform only a single function and move in one way. Whether that’s actually less confusing is debatable, and probably more a matter of preference than anything else. Personally, I love how SRAM lay out the controls for eTap; the first time I used it, I found it quick to learn and almost intuitive in its function. Riders who are already well-accustomed to Ergopower won’t have any issues, though, and being able to personalise the levers’ functions with the company’s in-depth MyCampy app is an obvious boon if you want to reconfigure things.

The other niggle with the levers is that the shift lever behind the brake blade still seems slightly too small. I could imagine that it would be easy to miss the target under race pressure or on a cold day with winter gloves on. As for the thumb shifters’ position, it’s a love-it or kinda-just-get-on-with-it situation. The lower position is easier to access than what Campag uses for its mechanical Ergopower levers, but I would like to see it lower down the lever hood. Without the functional constraints of its mechanical brethren, I’m sure it would be possible. As is, it’s a bit tricky to hit when your hands are in the drops.

The hoods are practically unchanged in both rim and disc versions, and seeing as how I gushed over the shape and comfort last year, this time around was no different. The shape is still very comfortable to hold, and the extra 8mm of height on the hydraulic version never felt strange or huge. In fact, that extra extension is a lovely place to rest the hands or push against when you’re outstretched into a more aero position. The brake blades are long and have a satisfying curve that your fingers naturally fall into. The fact that these can be adjusted in distance from the hoods will please many with smaller hands, too.

The brakes themselves — of which we only got to sample the disc version — are some of the best I’ve had the pleasure to use. Usually on a test ride with multiple other journalists and staff all on the same kit, you’re going to hear a rubbing disc or a squeal of a brake under pressure. Not once, though, did I hear rubbing or squealing on the test ride from anyone. The only noise is a slight hiss under heavy, prolonged braking. Heat doesn’t seem to be an issue, either. Campag says it has tested them to nearly 500°C without failure, and it’s clear that Campagnolo’s work with Magura has produced a superb braking system. The adjustment is also nice; never do you feel an overly sharp bite, and the power comes on gently and builds progressively. Granted, I have yet to use Campag disc brakes in the wet, so the verdict is still out on how they do there. But then again, given the cost, I wonder how many Super Record owners are going to subject this drool-worthy group to a miserably wet day, anyway.

Campagnolo has managed to yet again produce a good-looking product that practically screams Italian design and keeps in harmony with the Record and Super Record mechanical versions. Its rear mech I’d argue is even nicer, plus, if I’m honest, the minimalistic graphics have grown on me in the year that they’ve been used. Looks are all good and well, but worthless if the groupset doesn’t function well. Luckily it does, but there are a few niggles.

Last year’s 12-speed Super Record and Record groupset saw the Italian company invest two years of development, research, and huge sums of money into new machinery and engineering, resulting in two groupsets that I loved. Between the snappy, direct, and locked-in feel of the shifting, and the fact that I never found myself wanting for another gear in any given road situation, it was clear to me that Campag was on to a winner. A year on, many of these traits has been brought over to Super Record EPS, and overall, it certainly has much of that Campag allure, heritage, and feel. And it certainly doesn’t feel like a groupset that’s a consumable or disposable, which is good considering the steep asking price; each part seems lovingly manufactured.

But unfortunately, this fancier — and far more expensive — groupset just didn’t quite wow me as much. There seemed to be something lacking, something that would have me picking their mechanical version over the electronic version, at least for now. Maybe it’s because the Super Record mechanical groupset feels like a distillation of what the Italian brand is at heart to me, and maybe a firmware update with improve the performance moving forward, but the simple fact is that this EPS version didn’t give me the same grin or wow factor that the mechanical version does.

The disc brakes are a strong and solid item in the group set and I enjoyed using them.

www.campagnolo.com

The post Campagnolo Super Record EPS 12-speed: Details and first-ride review appeared first on CyclingTips.

You’re riding somewhere new and far from home. You know you’ll be stopping for a coffee, lunch or afternoon beverage, but not sure whether you’ll be able to keep eyes on your bike. What do you do? Traditional bike locks are simply too bulky and awkward to carry, and there’s no space on your frame to mount anything. What’s the alternative?

Pocket locks — or as I like to call them, cafe locks — are one answer. Working on the concept that any lock is better than no lock, these small security devices can fit into a jersey pocket, weigh next to nothing, and offer some protection against opportunistic thieves. Certainly, such a small lock won’t withstand a committed attack, but it might just stop a life-battler from riding off with your happiness machine.

I tested eight popular pocket-sized locks to find which is best. And with that, present alternate methods, tips and tricks which may achieve similar results.
 

Pocket lock options

Eight popular pocket locks tested (one not pictured)

The pocket lock options I tested can be split into three categories: cable, strap or linked plates. All except for the linked plate lock (Abus Bordo Lite) feature a combination-style lock.

In addition to how you plan on carrying the lock, you should also consider its length. Cable locks offer the most versatility and are long enough to be woven around multiple bikes or a frame, rear wheel and pole. By contrast, some of the strap or linked plate locks are only just long enough to secure a rear wheel to the frame, or a frame to a pole.

Cable pocket locks

The OnGuard Terrier Roller, OnGuard Terrier Roller Mini, Abus CombiFlex 2501 and Hiplok FLX are all based around a similar spooled cable (with auto-retract) and a three-digit combo lock (codes are always customisable). These locks are not unique to cycling, and can often be found in luggage stores too. However, the small form and low weight make them ideal for carrying when riding.

The Hiplok FLX is the most unique of the pocket-sized cable locks tested.

At the back the Hiplok FLX offers a belt (or pocket) loop and rear LED light. For US$10 less, Hiplok offer the FL, which simply trades the FLX’s LED light for a reflective strip.

The OnGuard Terrier Roller offers the same security as the Hiplok FLX, but in a simpler form and consequently, at a reduced cost.

At just 52g, the Abus CombiFlex 2501 is the lightest on test. It’s also equally the easiest to cut.

The OnGuard Terrier Roller Mini is effectively the same as the Abus CombiFlex 2501. There’s just three grams difference.

Snip. 1.5 or 1.95mm, it doesn’t make much difference with the right tool. Unfortunately for this style of lock, there are many cutting tools suited to ruining them. The tool pictured is a $20 side cutter that went through these locks like butter. Cable cutters, bolt cutters and even a leatherman were similarly, if not more, effective.

It’s clear that these four locks come from just one or two manufacturers, and the security can easily be determined by the thickness of the wire. The smallest two (Abus CombiFlex 2501 and OnGuard Terrier Roller Mini) each feature a coated 1.5mm thick steel braided cable (for reference, a typical brake cable is 1.6mm thick). A quick snip from some regular side cutters, cable cutters or bolt cutters will see these locks defeated. Yep, even a Leatherman multitool can break these in less than five seconds. On the bright side, you’ll be hard-pressed to rip these apart without the aid of tools, so they should be enough to prevent against an unplanned attack.

Adding a little more girth, the OnGuard Terrier Roller and Hiplok FLX each feature a coated 1.95mm steel braided cable. That .45mm extra doesn’t do much where decent hand tools are involved, and again, they’re quick to cut.

The Hiplok FLX is the most unique of this lock style, featuring a belt hook on the backside that hides a red LED light, allowing the lock to double as a wearable safety light. It’s a nice touch, but comes with a big jump in price and isn’t very bright. Alternatively, for US$10 less, Hiplok offers the same lock but with a reflective strip in place of the LED.

Strap-style pocket locks

Strap-style locks are effectively large reinforced and lockable zip-ties. You can pull them tight to ensure your bike can’t slide across the pole or fence its attached, and they can each be daisy-chained together if others in your group have the same lock. The non-scratch and snug-holding nature of strap-style locks makes them ideal for bike transporting use too, such as securing a wheel to a bike rack. Both Ottolock and Hiplok offer examples of these – each featuring three digit combo locks.

Zip ties are often used in protection services to retain those that mean harm. The Hiplok Z-Lok is a zip tie on steroids.

Side cutters, bolt cutters or aviation snips will cut the Hiplok with relative ease.

The Hiplok Z-Lok Combo is almost a zip tie, except for its plastic coated steel band construction and easy locking mechanism. The band is relatively rigid, and there’s no feature for keeping the lock rolled up, instead you’re left with either an awkward large loop or overhang to carry.

The 45cm length is long enough to wrap around a frame and back wheel, or frame and a thin pole. The steel band is surprising hardy against hand tools, but a good quality pair of side cutters made short work of it, as did a pair of tin snips. And assuming there were no witnesses, a hacksaw would cut it too.

The Ottolock is a more flexible, easier to carry strap-style lock. It’s also more secure than the (far) cheaper Hiplok Z-Lok.

The Ottolock is perhaps the most popular option here (and one of the most expensive) – and is the inspiration behind this whole test. The Ottolock Cinch Original features three thin steel bands that alternate with layers of kevlar – all covered in a non-scratch and grippy rubber-like (Santoprene) exterior. The idea is that the kevlar stops hacksaws from beating the steel bands, while the steel bands prevent scissors or other common cutting tools from making headway. The layered bands are also designed to slide and somewhat crush, preventing shearing forces from tools such as bolt cutters from beating the lock.

As tested, side cutters and pliers can gnaw at and damage the lock, but you’ll likely blunt the tool before the lock gives way. Likewise, a hacksaw does indeed get caught up in the kevlar fibres. However, as inspired by the lock picking lawyer, the Ottolock Cinch Original can be snipped by a sharp pair of aviation snips. Thankfully it’s unlikely that most thieves will have such a tool on them as they’re the wrong choice for cable-style locks.

Brand new to the market. The Ottolock Cinch Hexband solves many of the security concerns related to the lighter Cinch Original.

The Ottolock Cinch Original 18-inch (left) and the new Ottolock Cinch Hexband (30-inch) right.

My trusty side cutters didn’t cut it. The Ottolock Cinch Original’s metal plates simply crushed and slid with this tool.

Though Aviation snips are a quick win (or loss?) against the Cinch Orginal.

A look inside. On the left is the Ottolock Cinch Orginal, cut with aviation snips. On the right is the Cinch Hexband, it took me far longer, and cost me a pair of mid-level aviation snips to get this one to split.

The 18-inch (45cm) version is suitably long to attach a frame to a pole, or a rear wheel to the frame, but it’s unlikely do both at the same time. You’ll want the 30-inch version for that.

Just prior to finishing this article, Ottolock sent samples of its new Cinch Hexband, a heavier, more reinforced version which features six steel bands wrapped in kevlar. From the outside it looks (and measures) much like the Original, but inside, it’s designed to ward off the ill-fated aviation snip (or similar) attack.

Ottolock claims the reinforced Hexband version adds 75g in the 30-inch size (my Hexband is a pre-production sample and is lighter than production – 227g versus 250g claimed). I can confirm that extra weight indeed results in greater security, with the Hexband destroying my pair of mid-level aviation snips. In fact, it took me over two minutes of cutting and bending the Hexband before I beat it – a seriously impressive item. I suspect a fresh pair of high-end aviation snips will quickly beat this lock, but that’s rather specific.

In addition to the new layered construction, the locking mechanism has been given an update, and where the Original’s mechanism can feel a little vague and needs the occasional wiggle of the numbers to unlock, the new Hexlock is positive and precise to use. The Hexband is distinguishable by its Cerakote ceramic paint finish.

Both models of Ottolock can be rolled up and wrapped around things like saddle rails, and silicone straps are available separately for easy carrying of the lock on a frame or seatpost. The Original and Hexband are available in three lengths – 18-inch (45cm), 30-inch (76cm) and 60-inch (152cm). As tested, the 18-inch is enough to secure a rear wheel to the frame, a frame to a poll or two bikes together. While the 30-inch gives a little more freedom to involve a pole or fence while securing the rear wheel.

Link plate pocket locks

The Abus Bordo Lite is available in either 60cm (tested) or 85cm lengths.

The Bordo range of locks from Abus all feature a similar rivet-linked steel plate construction and are notoriously tough to break.

Although the lightest in Abus’ Bordo range, the Bordo Lite 6055 is the heaviest and bulkiest lock on test here. It’s also far and away the most secure lock tested, and arguably the most secure lock available that still fits within a jersey pocket.

The keyed lock of the 6055 may not be for everyone, and Abus offers the subtly different Bordo Lite 6150 with a combination lock as an alternative.

Where nearly all the other locks here can be cut with cheap hand tools, this one requires some serious firepower. A hacksaw would do it but take a long time, and an electric grinder will do it, but isn’t exactly what someone would use outside a cafe or pub. As revealed by the lock picking lawyer, a nut splitter is one way to get through this lock, as is picking the keyed locking mechanism, but even still, it’ll take the thief far longer to get through this than the quick snips or side cutters that beat the others.

What to get

One key thing to remember with any of the pocket locks test here is that none are immune to being broken. However, some are certainly better than others.

In the end, the brand new Ottolock Cinch Hexband is the clear winner for me. The 18-inch version is light and small enough to be easily carried and is long enough to chain two bikes to each other (or a single bike frame to a pole), while the 30-inch version is nearly as compact and gives enough length to involve a pole or fence, and even a rear wheel too. If grams matter (at the expense of absolute security), the Ottolock Cinch Original is worth considering too. Just be warned, neither are particularly cheap.

The ease of beating the cable-style pocket locks with a basic set of pliers means they shouldn’t be trusted for long periods of time. However, the compact size, generous cable length and ease of use remain appealing in the sense that something is better than nothing. The slightly larger versions don’t offer much more in terms of security, so if this style of lock appeals, then perhaps go with the smallest option. And if you want a lock that doubles as a light for quick urban trips, the Hiplok FLX is your only option here – but I’d rather use a dedicated light.

Perhaps you’re looking for a lock that’s light for commuting or short trips and you don’t really care all that much about weight? The Abus Bordo Lite is the obvious choice. It offers almost U-lock level of security in a pocket-size form factor. This combined with an Ottolock would be a great lightweight commuter setup.

If the Bordo Lite appeals, then also check out premium options from Tigr and Altor. I haven’t tried either of these as they don’t truly meet the pocket-size criteria of this test, but they’re certainly worth a look if you’re after a more serious, yet relatively light lock.

Alternative security methods

It’s quite shocking how easy it is to cut a steel braided cable, which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s replaced the cables on a bike. Given this, perhaps the simplest of methods can be enough to stop your bike from being nicked in a pinch. Here are a few methods to try.

The helmet lock

Helmet straps looped through a wheel will slow a thief by a few seconds. It may just be enough to stop them from trying.

Using the straps of a helmet has long been my go-to. Weaving those straps through a wheel and the frame will create a small obstacle for a thief. The tighter and fiddlier it is for you to do, the more time consuming it’ll be for a stranger to undo. Sure, someone set on taking your bike will touch your manky helmet strap and take your bike, or if they were prepared to cut a lock, it may just be quicker for them to cut the straps. But on the assumption that something is better than nothing, this is worth doing.

On this note, Lazer offers a commuter helmet (it was previously available for more models, but no longer) with a combination lock built into the buckle. Though a pair of scissors can defeat such a device.

Velcro or toe straps

Better than a helmet is a toe clip. These can be surprisingly fiddly to undo, especially to someone that hasn’t used one before.

The humble toe strap may prove an effective cafe lock. It weighs next to nothing, can be shoved into a saddle bag, and is long enough to tie a rear wheel to the frame. Better yet, a quick trip to your local spin class will prove that very few people actually know how to undo the things.

Alternatively, a velcro or rubber strap like those used for carrying stuff when bikepacking will also provide another barrier to thieves. I’ve used such things on trains before, and it provides enough assurance that someone won’t run off with your bike as the train doors open (yes, I’ve had someone try this on me. Thankfully that jerk’s matching Adidas tracksuit, bum bag and eyebrow stripes had me at the ready).

And if you want something metal, then you can fashion your own lock with a brake cable, some brass crimps (used to create loops at either end) and any small suitcase lock of your choosing. The cable can be wrapped up pretty small when not in use and weighs very little. Or you could just use a cable lock as tested above.

A loosened wheel

Other theft-prevention methods include loosening your wheel’s quick release levers, brakes or similar acts of self-sabotage. The idea, of course, is that a thief trying to ride away will come unstuck. Instant justice.

Personally, I believe slowing someone down when trying to take your bike in the first place is the better method, and won’t end with you being sued in the event it does work.

Still, if you’re set on this method, then the easiest answer is to undo your rear wheel’s quick release (won’t work with thru-axles). If someone tries to ride away the wheel will quickly pop out of the frame and make a tangled mess. The damaged bike and broken spokes that result are on you though.

Stacks on

View this post on Instagram

Bike parking on lock ???? @sswc18bendor • #singlespeedworlds #ssmtb #mtblife #bendoregon #bikepile #singlespeed #mountainbikingisnotacrime

A post shared by Spokesman Bicycles (@spokesmanbicycles) on Oct 19, 2018 at 4:36pm PDT

Safety in numbers. If parking up with a group, the stacks-on method of piling bikes up is fairly sufficient. Up against a wall is ideal; literally stacking them is for those without derailleurs. The more handlebars, saddles and pedals hooked with each other the better. And put the shittiest bike on the pile last. And if someone in the group does have a lock, then use it on the most outward-facing bikes.

Staying cafe savvy

In the end, the best prevention against theft is simply staying near your ride. Take valuable accessories such as your GPS computer with you, and always keep the bike where you can see it.

If that’s not possible, then seriously consider a pocket-sized lock. With exception of the Bordo Lite or more serious locks again, the somewhat expensive Ottolock Hexband is in a league of its own. However do beware, there are thieves that specialise in two-wheeled machines, and there are very few locks on the market that will do anything more than slow them.

What cafe security tips do you have? Any hard lessons learned?

The post Cafe bike security and the best pocket locks reviewed appeared first on CyclingTips.

Buying a gravel bike in 2019 is somewhat like shopping for laundry detergents: there’s way too much choice, there’s a weird amount of differentiation for what seems like a single purpose, and there’s far too much promise that the product will clean everything in its path.

Taking a leap of faith into the crowded gravel market, Grove Bike Co is a fresh name on a growing list of consumer-direct brands. And unlike many small start-up bike brands, Grove has invested in a product entirely of its own design – there’s no Alibaba shopping or open mould sourcing here – no small feat for a sole-owner bike brand.

An introduction to Grove

Dave Musgrove is a lifelong bike geek from Sydney’s Northern Beaches and the key person behind Grove Bike Co. Now in his 30s, Musgrove worked within the bike industry from his early teenage years — first as a shop rat, then progressing through the ranks to manage the workshop at one of Sydney’s top shops, and more recently, designing entire bike lineups for Australian bike companies.

Somewhere along the way he picked up a Bachelors degree in materials science engineering, with a thesis on carbon nanotubes. And yet, it’s been aluminium bikes that Musgrove has been the most hands-on with in recent years.

While now defunct, there was a time when Australian brand Cell Bikes transitioned from a low-quality, generic product, consumer-direct brand to one of impressively good value and thoughtfully designed bikes. I myself tested a number of them for another publication and was consistently impressed. Behind that rebirth was Musgrove, and while bikes like the Omeo and Akuna road bikes used a hybrid of open moulds, the Brunswick cyclocross bike and Awaba hardtail were his own ground-up designs.

Musgrove’s riding background is in the cool-to-watch side of cycling – trials, dirt jumping and even slopestyle. But it was through commuting that he eventually found drop bar life: “I was commuting five days a week, 300km a week, to the point I became a roadie.”

Having designed the Cell Brunswick cyclocross bike as a result of trashing road bikes and wanting to seek trails, Musgrove found himself rarely touching the road bike. “I found myself exploring on the cross bike,” he said. “And all of a sudden, this thing I was doing was given a name – gravel. In 2017 I did the Thunderbolt, 228km and 5,000m of ascending – that was a turning point for me, in my riding and the desire to have my own brand.

“I wanted a bike that could do it all, and create something that was truly capable of doing big and long rides over whatever terrain, but do it relatively quickly. Grove grew from that, with the desire to start with a gravel bike.”

With a decade’s experience visiting suppliers and factories in Taiwan, Musgrove undoubtedly had a clear idea of how to bring a bike to market, the mistakes to avoid, and more importantly, what he wanted the bike to look like.

Enter the R.A.D

R.A.D = Road and Dirt.

Sold consumer-direct within Australia, the Grove R.A.D is pitched as a multi-surface do-it-all drop bar bike. In reality, the Grove RAD has a character more comparable to a cyclocross race bike, but with mounting points for carrying things and plenty of tyre clearance (up to 700x43c or 27.5/650Bx2.1in). Over the past few months that I’ve tested the R.A.D, it has often reminded me of what I liked about the Cannondale SuperX SE, but just without the funky proprietary part fitments.

Manufactured in Taiwan, the frame features high-end 6069-T6 triple-butted and custom shaped tubing; a premium alloy that’s commonly disguised behind brand-specific marketing labels. With better strength and fatigue life compared to the more common 6061; the tube butting can be more aggressive which leads to a lighter and better riding frame.

There are a few tricky things being used here to allow such large rubber to fit within the limitations of standard components and pleasingly short 420mm chainstays (even Cannondale’s SuperX SE’s sit at 422mm, and they used proprietary components to pull it off). For instance, the frame was designed for single chainring use only (a 46T fits with plenty of clearance), a growing trend among gravel bikes that’s come across from mountain bikes.

A CNCed chainstay yoke creates clearance between big rubber and the standard-offset chainring.

Bridgeless seat and chainstays also help with clearance, while a closer look at the driveside chainstay reveals a CNC machined yoke that segments the tube. “With the tyre clearance and crankset clearances, there’s only 8mm width between them. The alternative [to a yoke] was a dropped stay – but I went with the yoke and straight stay for the visual appearance which is more traditional, but also just for balance and stiffness of the bike by not having one tube much longer than the other,” explained Musgrove.

The desired combination of tyre clearance, stiffness and short chainstays brought upon an additional and potentially polarising aspect – a press-fit bottom bracket shell. As Musgrove explained, “[the PF86 press fit shell] provides 18.5mm extra width compared to a regular road threaded shell.

“I have experienced creaking press-fit bottom brackets in my life. That’s typically due to improper assembly and/or tolerances. The concept of pressing bearings direct into a frame is silly in my mind, the concept of a cup that deforms slightly is good.”

When pushed about tolerance issues, Musgrove elaborated. “Tolerances are really important here. For this, the frame is welded, then put through T4 heat treatment, a final alignment of the frame (most important) is done, and then it goes into T6 heat treatment. After that, the bores are CNC machined, including the bottom bracket. Additionally, the standard factory assembly process is to put press fit cups in dry. I’ve requested the build be done with grease.”

Slim dropouts and tightly tucked seatstays aid in heel clearance.

Another example of where the R.A.D’s design overcomes common shortcomings is seen at the dropouts. The dropout and seatstay closely overhang inward and over the cassette. “This allows me to address the heel-rub issues associated with adopting mountain bike wheel standards while keeping road crank widths,” Musgrove said. “The dropouts are super narrow for this reason. Bending all of that area and getting the right shape was a heap of investment.”

Those dropouts are also replaceable. “Main thing is future-proofing because in terms of thread pitches and non-drive-side head interface – I just wanted that design to be future-proof so I can modify it in future if needed. Currently, it’s using Shimano’s rear road standard axle sizing, which is quite narrow.”

A stiff full carbon fork sits up front and features internal routing for the brake hose.

Up front sits a full carbon fork using a 1 1/8 to 1 1/2in taper steerer. 12mm thru-axles feature front and rear, as do flat mount disc brakes. Both frame and fork offer mounting points for fenders. A rear pannier rack can also be fitted, and there are bolts provided for a small toptube bag. Finally, frames can carry three bidons (two inside the main triangle, one underneath the downtube), with a third bolt provided on the downtube cage placement for options in cage mounting or fitting of suitable accessories.

The R.A.D is competitive, although not class-leading in terms of weight. It tips the scales at a claimed 1.55kg for a painted medium frame. My complete R.A.D Force LTD weighed 8.35kg with the AlexRims All-Road wheel option, and 8.63kg with the Hunt Carbon 650B wheels fitted with 48c off-road rubber – both excluding pedals.

Ride style choice and considered packaging

A big part of the R.A.D’s do-it-all claim is it’s specifically designed around using multiple wheelsets. Regardless of whether you pick the R.A.D Rival (starting from AU$2,599, black only) or the R.A.D Force LTD (tested, starting from AU$3,599, pictured “snowgum green” only), there’s a number of wheel setups to choose from, and as many as ten options if looking at the R.A.D Force.

This is comprised of four different wheelsets: 700c or 650B alloy wheels from AlexRims; or 700c or 650B carbon wheels from Hunt (only available with the R.A.D Force). The latter carbon wheel options come at a premium, adding AU$900 to R.A.D Force.

As tested, the R.A.D and a couple of wheelsets.

From there, different tyre options and even cassette sizes combine to make up the ten choices. The use of tubeless-ready Panaracer tyres remains consistent across all options, and all but the cyclocross wheel choice (11-36T) feature a well functioning wide-range 11-42T Sunrace RX8 cassette. Grove’s website offers great detail on what each setup offers.

I chose to test the bike with the base 700x32c “All-Road” aluminium AlexRims Boondocks 3 wheels (21mm internal width) fitted with Panaracer GravelKing tyres, and the 650Bx48c “Carbon Gravel Plus” option featuring Hunt Adventure Carbon wheels (24mm internal width) and Panaracer GravelKing SK rubber. If you’re keen on multiple wheels like I tested, there is a discount for buying the second set with the bike. For the moment, get in touch with the brand if you’re interested.

Once you’ve made the selection, the bike is unboxed, fitted with the necessary wheel choice, checked for build quality and sent with a courier. It’s the boxing that impressed me most, with a minimalist and reusable packaging system to a level I’ve only previously seen from Canyon.

How the R.A.D looks straight out of the box. There is little wasted packaging and it makes for an easy assembly.

Building the bike is straightforward, and if you’ve built an Ikea Billy bookcase, you can surely do this. All the parts are held snugly with clever velcro strapped foam blocks (Sorry Mr Musgrove, they’re mine now) and unlike most boxed bikes, there’s very little packaging waste. And much like Canyon’s BikeGuard system, Grove intends for this box and packaging to be reused – even the carry holes are reinforced.

As an added perk, basic tools – including a preset torque wrench – are provided for assembly and are neatly wrapped in a supplied tool roll. The bike’s build quality is similarly sorted, with the gears, brakes and even headset tightness proving spot-on straight out of the box. And even the finest of details, such as foam insulation tubing covering the internally-routed cables, are sorted – no rattles here!

Perhaps the only element not entirely taken care of is the optional tubeless setup. Regardless of your wheel choice, the rims and tyres are tubeless-ready and with the correct tape installed. Grove provides the tubeless valves in the tool roll, but the supply of tubeless sealant and the labor is your own.

The tyres and rims are setup ready for tubeless, but seating the beads can be a little fussy.

The Panaracer tyres don’t provide the easiest tubeless setup experience, and you’ll likely need more than a regular floor pump to get the beads to seat. On the bright side, the tyres are not painfully tight to get on and off the rims.

And while nitpicking, the cable housing and brake hoses are on the longer side and bow outward from the headtube. Musgrove explained that this was done to allow more freedom in changing bars and stems without needing new brake lines. It makes sense given it’s always easier to remove than add length. To solve the issue without cutting the housing, I simply affixed the rear brake hose and gear housing together in front of the headtube to keep them narrow.

Lastly, the disc spacing of the AlexRims and Hunt wheels differed on my samples. This meant I had to readjust the disc calipers when swapping between wheels. Of course this is only an issue for those looking to buy a second set of wheels, and Musgrove assures me he’ll be solving this for double-wheel purchases by shimming the rotors appropriately.

Hitting the Groad with the Grove

Remember how I said the R.A.D reminded me of the Cannondale SuperX SE? That’s a compliment, and a big one at that. I loved the quick and lively handling of the Cannondale that remained poised when things got a little hairy – something the Grove mimicks closely.

From the outset, it was clear the Grove was built with going fast in mind. The handling at the front is fast, and little input is needed to change direction. Likewise, the shorter than usual chainstays (for a gravel bike) aid in the ability to adjust your line, keep your weight on the rear tyre when tackling loose climbs, or when lifting the front wheel over things in your path.

Overall, the R.A.D’s numbers are fairly regular, and perhaps more similar to a taller-perched CX racing bike than the gravel trend of slack head angles and low bottom brackets. Musgrove’s initial prototype had a slacker head angle, but he steepened it up after experiencing wheel flop in corners (a feeling like the bike is trying to tip you off – something I experienced with the Giant ToughRoad).

As a result, all four size options feature the same 52mm offset fork, which with the 72-degree head angle provides a road bike-like 57mm trail figure (using 650Bx47c rubber; trail is 61mm with a 700x40c tyre). I can’t speak for larger frame sizes, but these figures work well on my medium sample.

The bottom bracket height is also higher than current gravel trends, and as a result, allows easier pedaling through corners and greater ground clearance. Musgrove explained, “I feel what happens to be the perfect BB drop for CX racing (700x33c), also works perfectly for 650Bx48c gravel setup.” His reasoning is that if you’re riding off-road trails that are rough enough to justify needing wide 650B rubber, then you’ll likely want the added ground clearance.

It’s a sentiment I agree with, especially around Sydney’s rocky trails where pedal strikes can be a common occurrence when bottom bracket heights are dropped too far. However, that higher bottom bracket height is a key contributor to why the R.A.D can at times feel a little too fast in its steering. It’s most noticeable on the road when rolling “skinnier” 700x32c rubber, where the bike is seemingly more eager to tip into corners than a fast road bike. Putting on the 650B setup with its wider tyre contact patch tames the feeling, while running big diameter rubber such as 700x42c will go in an unwanted direction with forcing a higher center of gravity.

There’s only 11mm height difference between the 700x32c and 650Bx48c wheel setups I ran. However, going to larger 700c rubber will raise the bottom bracket further.

Geometry is directly impacted by wheel diameter, and while the R.A.D can fit big diameter rubber, it’s best suited to running slightly smaller choices – like those provided with my test sample. On this note, my 650Bx48mm wheels fitted with rubber measured in at an actual 683mm height, while the 700x32c “All-road” setup measured a taller 694mm. While totally subjective, I’d say the handling compromises will arise once you start using larger than 700x35c rubber.

I commonly experience toe overlap on road and cross bikes in my size, but I very rarely experienced it on the R.A.D. In fact, it was only present with the larger 700c wheel setup, while there was zero issue when running the wider treaded, albeit shorter 650Bs. It’s another example of where the R.A.D will become compromised if you do decide to fit large (over 38c) 700c rubber.

The riser dropbar has a polarising look, but I learned to love the shape. It also serves a purpose.

The stack and reach figures are closely in line with a race bike too, with enough room to stretch out and feel balanced between the wheels. The stack height is on the lower side, without being too aggressive to rule out the non-racers. Musgrove balanced this lower stack with a somewhat unusual handlebar choice – the Ritchey ErgoMax WCS. This quality aluminium handlebar offers a small amount of rise from its clamped position, a compact bend and moderate flare to the drops. As a result, using the drops doesn’t put you super low, which gives a comfortable position for more technical trails.

If you want an ultimately low position, then the R.A.D won’t limit you; you’ll just want to ditch that riser dropbar and a few steerer spacers.

Regardless of whether you’re pushing the front wheel into a bermed corner or sprinting on tarmac, there’s no wiggle felt in the frame. The front end is extremely stiff, and the front wheel will go wherever your bars are pointed.

Thinned stays and a flexible 27.2mm post help take the sting out of the short backend.

Unfortunately, the flip side of that is there’s only a little shock relief from what your front tyre is hitting. As is common with many performance-oriented bikes, the R.A.D’s stiff front end leads to more shock transmission than what’s felt out back. The thinned and subtly bowed seatstays flex somewhat, while the selected 27.2mm seatpost is a Ritchey WCS Carbon Link FlexLogic with intended deflection. And if you’re riding terrain so rough that you’re regretting leaving the mountain bike at home, then wide 650B rubber setup tubeless and run below 30psi does an impressive job of keeping you in control. But regardless of your tyre choice, the Grove is by no means a bone-rattling experience.

Looking to more specific applications and those eager to take part in the skinsuit-wearing, blood-in-the-mouth shenanigans of cyclocross will find the wide half-moon shaped top tube ideal for shouldering and just as easy for toptube grabs.

At the complete opposite end of the scale, the quick handling works ideally with a handlebar bag. That extra weight on the front wheel simply calms the R.A.D’s quick handling, but not enough to make it feel heavy to react. On a similar note, the relatively square frame affords plenty of room for a frame bag.

As usual, the SRAM Force 1 group performed without a hiccup, providing great chain security, dependable shifts and faultless braking.

With one bike claiming to do so much, the single ring gearing choice may prove to be the biggest area of contention. The stock 42T chainring and 11-42T cassette gave me nearly all the range I wanted when riding mixed terrain, but I wished for even lower gearing when taking the R.A.D where mountain bikes best belong. At the opposite end, you may wish to size up your chainring if you’re planning some group road rides or live in flatter terrain, especially given that SRAM’s usual 10T cog isn’t provided here.

The mountain biker’s “other” bike

The Grove R.A.D is an impressively well-thought-out bike. Perhaps most impressive is the clear attention given to the smallest of details that even the largest companies sometimes overlook – all from a small start-up bike company on its introductory product.

For me, that fine attention to detail and selection of proven parts forgives the pricing that may not seem as sharp as what an aluminium consumer-direct bike should be. With carbon framed options such as the Giant Revolt Advanced or Canyon Grail sneaking in at a similar price (albeit with lesser parts), the decision is likely to be murky.

With a fast and relatively stiff ride, the R.A.D is best suited to someone who appreciates the ability to take control and throw a bike around. Regardless of frame material, this is a great riding bike with compromise-free component choices.

However, you don’t have to be a racer to enjoy what the R.A.D has to offer. It’s an extremely versatile drop-bar bike, and one that is easily transformed with a swap of wheels or even tyres. There is a compromise in that, and I felt far happier rolling along the pavement with the 700x32c rubber than I did dragging along the 650B knobby treads on smooth surfaces. Likewise, the 650B mountain bike rubber offers clear benefits to control and ride comfort when the ground becomes unkempt.

Like many good gravel bikes, the R.A.D is capable of replacing a number of other drop bar bikes in your stable, but you’ll likely want some choice in the shoes it wears.

Click through for more info at Grove Bike Co.

Gallery

Ready for road and well-kept gravel, here’s the R.A.D in its All-Road format .

The R.A.D offers traditional frame lines, while a closer look reveals very modern adaptions.

Like many good gravel bikes, the R.A.D is surprisingly versatile and can be used for all sorts of adventures.

The triple bidon mounts are becoming a more common sight. While there are accesories to work with them, the main benefit is that they give you freedom in where to place your bidon cages.

Another angle of that CNC’d chainstay yoke.

The Grove offers fender mounts front and rear. The rear can also handle a pannier rack.

Whatever tyre size the rear can fit, the front can fit it with ease.

I found the flare on the Ritchey WCS ErgoMax bars really nice for descending.

Replaceable dropouts provide the frame with a little future-proofing.

The R.A.D features a large 1 1/8 to 1.5in tapered steerer tube. The bearings used within are common sizes.

Three bidon cage mounts are provided on the front triangle.

The choice of a press-fit bottom bracket shell may turn a few away, but it was chosen for good reason. I didn’t experience any creaking from this area (there was a seatpost creak to begin with; grease fixed it).

You can’t see it from here, but the fork offers aluminium inserts at the dropout where it contacts the hub end caps. This provides a more durable clamping surface, and one that protects the paint.

Preach.

I love these foam blocks. Canyon were the first to use this type of packaging, and it’s much classier option than bubble wrap and cardboard.

Grove provides a bunch of tools with the bike. The branded tool roll is a nice touch, too.

The bolt-up thru-axles work with a 5mm hex key and close onto a metal surface.

I was skeptical about the SunRace RX8 cassettes, but they performed wonderfully. Grove selects these because they fit standard Shimano HG-style freehub bodies and are far lighter than what SRAM has available with the same fitment. Unfortunately the use of a regular freehub body also means you’re limited to an 11T as the smallest cog.

Fin.

The post Grove R.A.D gravel bike review: An Aussie all-rounder appeared first on CyclingTips.

“Lighter than our Venge and more aero than our Tarmac.”

That’s an attractive statement for anyone seeking a new race bike. In this case, it applies to Specialized’s all-new Roubaix, the company’s long-standing endurance platform.

Announced just in time for its namesake race, the new Roubaix retains and improves on a number of the platform’s pre-existing comfort features, such as the suspended steerer tube and flexible seatpost, and blends that marquee feature with aerodynamic tube profiles and reduced weight in the goal of performance.

Both Dave Everett and Caley Fretz have spent time hammering the new bike on Belgium’s finest cobbles and provide their thoughts below. But first, the details.

Improved comfort

Specialized kept the Future Shock concept that uses a sprung telescoping steerer tube to suspend the bike’s stem from the forces below. Sticking with 20mm of suspension travel, the all-new Future Shock 2.0 (equipped on Roubaix Expert and higher) features a hydraulic damper for a more controlled ride.

With a third of a turn, a dial above the stem provides control over the compression dampener, allowing a choice between having the suspension open or closed. In its closed position, the shock offers a threshold for where it’ll let oil flow through, mitigating the risk of damper damage and excessive shock.

The Future Shock 2.0 offers a turn dial lockout. The action is indented, although it’s really designed to be used as an on-off switch.

This all spells a significant update over the original Future Shock which uses a series of metal springs and bumpers; whereas the new version sits more inline with current mountain bike suspension technology with oil-damped compression and rebound.

The Roubaix Comp and below gets an updated Future Shock 1.5. It’s a more basic sprung system like the original, but with added top and bottom out bumpers for better feel and control. Whereas the FutureShock 2.0 has its spring and damper preset, the FutureShock 1.5 offers a choice in three spring weights.

Both the Future Shock 2.0 and 1.5 get a new, classier, smooth rubber protector boot.

The new Future Shock brings with it a new stem, something that is found on Comp models and up. The FutureShock 2.0 cannot be retrofitted to older models, officially.

Looking to the rear of the bike, Specialized retained a flexible seatpost and its lowered clamp design in order to increase the post’s lever length. However, both are all-new and aerodynamically-optimized.

The new D-shaped carbon Pave post flexes along its entire exposed length. While it looks simpler than Specialized’s previous CG-R (Cobble Gobbler) seatposts, Specialized state the new post is in-fact more compliant. The carbon layup is effectively divided into three zones, with a unidirectional fibre in the middle portion designed to promote rearward flex. The post flexes in an arc, and doesn’t impact on saddle height.

All models will be equipped with a 20mm offset Pave post, although Specialized will offer a zero-offset version aftermarket.

Within the bulge at the top of the seattube sits a dropped seatpost clamp, which increases the amount of flexible exposed seatpost by clamping at a lower point.

Ready to race

The Roubaix uses Specialized’s “FreeFoil Shape Library Tubes”, an advanced computer-generated solution that was used extensively on the new Venge. According to Specialized, the new Roubaix is more aero than its Tarmac SL6 (also aero-optimized), a bike that was already equal in aerodynamics to the original Venge.

The new Roubaix is available in two tiers of frame. The S-Works frame uses FACT 11r carbon, a fancy name for Specialized’s use of a high modulus carbon mix (The S-Works Tarmac SL6 features FACT 12r, an even higher mix). And as used for the Expert, Comp and lower models, the second tier frame features a mix of lower modulus carbon, dubbed FACT 10r.

Weight wise, the new Roubaix is now lighter, too. A black painted 56cm S-Works frame is said to dip under 900g, with complete bikes starting from 7.2kg. Specialized claim there’s a 115g difference between its two levels of frames (56cm), placing the Pro and Comp frames at around 1015g.

The Roubaix gets an updated geometry that now sits somewhere between the previous Roubaix and the Tarmac. Compared to the Tarmac, the Roubaix’s stack sits on average 40mm higher, chaninstays are 3-8mm longer, and the bottom bracket is 3-4mm lower. Those two latter figures are related to tyre clearance, with the Roubaix offering space for 33mm rubber (28m provided stock on all models).

Numbers of the new Roubaix.

Specialized has also taken a cue from a direct competitor’s handbook with offering the S-Works model in both Team and regular geometry. The Team geometry offers shorter head tube lengths and a resulting increased reach and reduced stack (to closely mimic the Tarmac), but is limited to an S-Works frameset and only in 53, 57 and 59cm sizes.

Helping shed some grams, Specialized has removed its SWAT box storage concept from the bike. And more minimal again, the new Roubaix can be used with a front bag (Future Shock 2.0 only), but isn’t compatible with Specialized’s Burra Burra Stabilizer seatpack. The Diverge is still the best pick of Specialized’s catalogue for loaded riding.

More premium models feature relatively traditional handlebars, while lower-level models come equipped with variations of Specialized’s Hoverbar with a small amount of rise from the stem. The base models come equipped with Specialized’s Adventure Gear Hover bar, combining a little rise with a 12-degree flare, short 70mm reach and 103mm drop.

No more gender specificity

Using data from years of global Retul fitting services, Specialized has come to the conclusion that there’s no clear link that defines male versus female body types. And with that, gone are the gender-specific models, formerly the Roubaix and Ruby for men and women respectively.

Now, Roubaix component spec is simply sized proportionally. Whether female or male, a rider on a 48cm likely needs shorter cranks and narrower handlebar, and the opposite is true at the other side of the size scale.

Nearly every Roubaix model comes with the same gearing range. That’s a compact crank matched with a 11-34T cassette for Shimano builds, or as tested, a 10-33T cassette, and 46/33T chainrings for SRAM-equipped options.

Specialized will be producing most Roubaix models in seven sizes, starting from 44cm. There is also an eighth frame size, a 64cm, only available in the Expert model and limited to certain markets.

We rarely mention saddles in bike releases, but it’s worth noting that Specialized will equip all new Roubaix models with its snub-nose Power saddles. This saddle was originally designed for women, before finding wide acceptance with males. It’s proven to be Specialized’s top-selling aftermarket saddle and makes sense to be equipped on a gender-neutral model range. Again using data from Retul bike fits, the two smallest bike sizes (44 and 49cm) will come with a 155mm-width saddle to best fit female riders, while all other sizes will feature a 143mm version.

Pricing

The new Roubaix: first ride review

Caley Fretz here, stepping into Dave Rome’s excellent rundown of the Roubaix’s updates to throw in my own two cents, based on about thirty hours of riding the new Roubaix in and around my hometown of Boulder, Colorado. I took the new bike on dirt roads, paved climbs and descents, even a bit of light singletrack, all in an effort to get a feel for this bike’s personality in the real world.

The real world is key, you see. It’s where the last version of the Roubaix kind of fell flat for me.

The first time I rode the old Roubaix was on the actual cobbles of Paris-Roubaix, starting at the Arenberg and finishing at the velodrome. The bike was phenomenal. I’ve ridden the same route a number of times, on a bunch of bikes (a Trek Domane and my own Ti bike included), and the old Roubaix was far and away the most enjoyable of the lot. It made the Roubaix cobbles fun, almost, as my hands floated above the chatter, isolated by real suspension.

Then I rode the bike at home, and I hated it. The original Future Shock, so lovely on the Carrefour, was a something of a bouncy mess climbing Flagstaff. The cobbles of Roubaix are a long way from real use case of a bike like this, and it showed.

Specialized told us, and I believe them, that the movement of the Future Shock wasn’t actually slowing us down. But it was the sensation I didn’t like, not the speed or lack thereof. A road bike with bars that bounce when you’re out of the saddle, that clunks when the shock tops out after you hit a big seam in the road, that road bike isn’t for me.

It was within this context — that of a Future Shock sceptic — that I set out on the new one.

It is clear, immediately and emphatically, that the new one is better.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s better in the same way that modern, damped suspension forks are better than, well, anything from the 1990s. That’s roughly the leap in technology that the Future Shock took: From a basic spring, adjustable only by swapping out the spring itself, to real suspension technology including damping circuits that control movement.

Control is the key word here. The new Future Shock feels controlled. When you sit on the bike, it drops a few millimeters into its travel, and hovers near that position as you roll along. As with the old version, if the road drops a bit from underneath you, the bike can go with it while your hands stay level, and if the road has a bump, the bike comes up while your hands stay level. The difference between the old Future Shock and the new one comes in the moments right after those events. Where the old bike would sort of bounce back to its starting point, the new one settles back, carefully.

The Roubaix is still designed to fit the mass population, but it’s somewhat more sporty than before.

On the Roubaix cobbles, there are so many bumps that the somewhat uncontrolled feel of the old Future Shock made little difference. It’s a matter of priorities: removing the harsh input of each cobble comes first and foremost, and the old Future Shock did that. That’s why I liked it in Roubaix. But on a more realistic surface, the details start to matter.

The details, in this case, are that damping circuit. Even when open, it controls the action of the Future Shock in such a way that what movement there is goes largely unnoticed. The shock simply does its thing, and if you don’t look down you can hardly tell it’s doing its thing. Your hands just hover. As anyone who has ever mountain biked knows, this is the mark of well-tuned suspension.

The old Future Shock had me begging for a lockout knob. Its movement was too sporadic, and I found it irritating whenever I got out of the saddle, or spent long stretches on good road surfaces. Ironically, the new Future Shock has a lockout (or close to it), and I hardly used it. That’s not because I suddenly decided it wasn’t necessary, it’s because the movement of the new Future Shock is controlled well enough that it doesn’t feel as necessary, even when out of the saddle. Yes, you can feel it move, but that movement is less jarring, less irritating. And then it still does its job (in fact, it does it much better) when you come across a real impact, or series of impacts.

None of this should be surprising. As I said, the technological leap the Future Shock took from Version 1 to Version 2 is roughly equivalent to about 30 years of suspension development. For the first time, the Roubaix is a bike I’d actually ride, and enjoy, on real roads.

Did I dislike anything? Yes. The headset still came loose on me, after a couple of rides. But a little nut they’ve added should have fixed this issue, in theory. It never came loose on me a second time, once I tightened it. And the rubber boot around the seat post worked itself up and out of the frame on a day when it was very, very cold. Specialized says this is because I had a pre-production model and the rubber was too hard. I don’t know if this was the case, but when we rode the bikes again this week, in slightly warmer weather, it didn’t happen.

I appreciate the other updates to this new Roubaix — the aero tuning, a better seat post clamp system, the addition of pro geometry, the use of a threaded bottom bracket — but really, it’s all very much secondary to the Future Shock. Suspension works. In fact, it overwhelms the rest of the bike. It makes all the tiny little nitpicky ride quality details we usually talk about with road bikes sort of irrelevant. Frame compliance? Please. If you truly want to be separated from road impacts (and I’d say that’s not yet a definitive “yes,” at least for me), then real suspension is dramatically more effective.

Want more? Check out the RoubaixCast

Just like with the Venge last summer, we wanted to dig deeper. So we asked for an early test bike, rode it, and then flew to Specialized headquarters in Morgan Hill, California, sat down with the engineers and product managers behind the bike, and recorded it all.

This podcast goes deep into the development of the Roubaix, from early mistakes to tricky fixes to final product. Available below and wherever you find your podcasts.

Gallery

Dare we say, the new Roubaix is a better looking bike than the previous version. Note that this is the pro version, with a shorter stack height.

A side on view of the Future Shock 2.0. The “Smooth Boot” is a nice aesthetic upgrade over the previous crimped boot.

The Future Shock allows up to 30mm of headset spacers to be used below the stem.

The frame offers a place for an integrated Di2 junction box.

Cable routing is internal once it reaches the frame.

The dropped seatpost clamp means the post is able to flex before it even exits the seattube.

Flat mount disc brakes and 12mm thru-axles feature on all Roubaix models. There are no weird fitments going on here.

Dave “Shoddy” Everett seeing what he can ram the front wheel into.

The post Specialized’s new Roubaix first-ride review: Performance, soothed appeared first on CyclingTips.

Easton’s 55mm-deep Fantom aero rim design was pretty progressive when it debuted in 2014, what with its ultra-wide and blunt-nosed profile as well as an unusually (for the time) 19mm internal rim width and tubeless compatibility on clincher versions. That Fantom shape is still used by Easton today, and when combined with the company’s latest Vault Disc hubset — not to mention a (relatively) competitive price — the new EC90 Aero55 Disc comes across as a solid option for road and ‘cross riders looking for a versatile, everyday aero wheelset.

I’ve been thinking a lot about what my next car will be (stay with me here, please). I want a five-door hatchback with a manual transmission, enough power to be entertaining but not get me in too much trouble, a lively suspension, and enough interior space to hold a typical Costco run for my small family of three. Bonus points for an interior free of unnecessary gadgetry (fewer touchscreens, more knobs please) and a decent reliability record, because while I enjoy tinkering on stuff, I have neither the time nor the patience these days to deal with that sort of thing.

Lots of cars on the market today satisfy some number of those requirements to varying degrees, but if I’m looking for something that more carefully balances all of them, I keep landing on the Volkswagen GTI: fun to drive, an available manual transmission, a practical interior, very good power, a fair price. It might look like a pedestrian box, but that’s not something that matters a ton to me from the driver’s seat.

So what does this have to do with aero road wheels?

Easton’s latest EC90 Aero55 Disc road wheels use a proven rim shape and solid-looking, disc-specific hubs.

There are a litany of capable aero road wheels available these days, all with different balances of attributes like aerodynamic performance, price, weight, reliability, build quality, and so on. We’re truly spoilt for choice, and especially at the upper end of the pricing scale, it’s more a matter of figuring out which qualities are most important to you than which one is “best”, especially given that “best” has become an increasingly difficult title to assign.

One company often overlooked in this category is Easton. The brand is no stranger to wheels since buying the know-how of Velomax back in the early 2000s, nor is the California outfit at all unfamiliar with carbon fiber. But it wasn’t until Easton introduced its Fantom rim profile in 2014 that people really started to pay attention.

The wide and blunt-nosed shape is commonplace these days, mostly because it’s seemingly what most companies have found to work well. The external spoke nipples make for easy truing if and when needed.

Easton focused on all-around aero performance when it introduced its 55mm-deep Fantom rim shape in 2013. The company touted a so-called Wind Averaged Drag test protocol to refine the profile until it produced what Easton felt were the best overall drag numbers in conditions that the majority of riders were most likely to see on a day-to-day basis. The result is a notably broad cross-section that measures 28mm (external width) at the bead hooks, and an even more generous 30mm further down on the rim.

Combined with the blunt nose, the claim was that the Aero55 design could provide aerodynamic benefits in a wider range of wind directions and speeds, while also being more manageable in terms of handling than you’d expect from something this deep.

More recently introduced is the new EC90 Aero55 Disc wheelset, which pairs a tubeless-compatible clincher version of the Fantom rim with the company’s new Vault disc hubs. Easton touts these as “everyday” aero road wheels, suitable for both regular training and races.

The EC90 Aero55 Disc wheels aren’t super light on the scale, but most of that extra weight relative to the rim-brake version is situated at the hub, where it’s less noticeable.

Actual weight for my test set is a respectable 1,587g (723g front; 864g rear), including factory-installed tubeless rim tape, aluminum tubeless valve stems, a Shimano/SRAM driver body, and 12mm thru-axle front and rear end caps. Claimed weight is 1,545g, although, in typical industry practice, that figure likely doesn’t account for the tubeless bits.

Retail price is US$2,050 / £2,900 / €2,950 — not exactly cheap by any means, but comparatively reasonable for something like this from a mainstream company (Australian pricing is TBC). To put buyers’ minds at ease, Easton also includes a two-year, no-questions-asked guarantee, which, at least in theory, should cover everything from stuffing the wheel into a curb during a botched criterium corner to accidentally backing over them with the family car.

Riding and wrenching the EC90 Aero55 Disc

Without precise wind tunnel data to parse the increasingly minute differences between modern aero road wheels these days, subjective on-road tests certainly don’t mean as much as they once did. And indeed, I found Easton’s new EC90 Aero55 Disc to feel just as I expected, and similar to my prior experiences with Fantom rims.

They’re notably efficient at higher speeds, and much more manageable in strong crosswinds than the rim depth might otherwise suggest. Granted, they don’t seem quite as stable in swirling conditions as slightly newer shapes I’ve ridden recently, such as Enve’s SES 4.5 AR Disc or the Princeton CarbonWorks Wake 6560, but Fantom is definitely aging gracefully nevertheless.

Branding is appreciably subdued and stealthy.

The static weight won’t blow anyone’s minds, but the excellent aerodynamic efficiency and relatively low rotational inertia also keep the EC90 Aero55 from feeling bogged down on steep uphill pitches. Dedicated climbing wheels these are not, but as a do-everything set of road wheels for a rider who can only afford one pair, they get the job done with little fuss.

One of the things I remember about previous rim-brake versions of Fantom-equipped Easton wheels I’ve ridden in the past is their outstanding lateral rigidity; in fast and tight corners on high-quality tarmac, they could be pushed really hard without either wheel feeling like there was any sideways give at all.

The tubeless rim profile made for easy tire installation and removal, as well as easy initial inflation with a standard floor pump. Tubeless tires aren’t required, of course, but it’s nice that Easton pre-installs tubeless-compatible rim tape at the factory, plus the requisite valve stems are included as well.

Squeezing a disc rotor obviously requires that the spoke flanges be situated closer to together, though, and the front wheel on this EC90 Aero55 Disc set didn’t inspire quite as much confidence when I had things really leaned over. Then again, this is something inherent to all road disc wheels, not just from Easton, so it’s not an entirely fair criticism to level only here.

But that said, while the disc format also introduces some left-to-right spoke tension imbalance up front, it helps alleviate it out back, so pick your poison.

Build quality on the wheels in general is very good, regardless, and this is one area in which Easton has long enjoyed a strong reputation. Both wheels came out of the box fantastically round and true with impressively even spoke tensions per side. A few weeks of on-road and off-road testing never prompted any telltale popping or pinging from the spokes that often accompanies a wheel that hasn’t been properly de-stressed at the factory — always a good sign.

The Vault rear hub sports a gigantic cone-shaped aluminum body that was presumably chosen to aid in power transfer (not that it can really be felt from the saddle). It looks quite neat, though.

If anything does go haywire, rear assured you won’t have to go hunting for straight-pull bladed spokes that might not be easy to source locally. Easton includes five spares with each set, and to further allay any worries, the spoke nipples are externally located so any minor tweaks that might be necessary take but a moment to do, with no tire removal necessary.

Hubs, on the other hand, haven’t exactly been Easton’s strong suit in the past. In fact, the R4 and R4SL road hubs ended up being pretty downright awful in terms of long-term durability — especially when it came to weatherproofing — and the M1 disc-compatible hubs the company first rolled out on its mountain wheels weren’t much better. All of them also suffered from sensitivity to bearing preload, which was far too easy to get wrong with the adjustable system Easton had in place back then.

The freehub mechanism uses a conventional ratchet ring and sprung pawls, but in an inverted arrangement with the steel ratchet ring incorporated into the aluminum freehub body, and the three double-tooth pawls anchored inside the driveside spoke flange.

That reputation started to turn around with the Echo hubs Easton debuted along with the Fantom rim design. The ultra-wide bearing spacing generated less off-axis loading on the bearing cartridges, there was clever angular contact bearing architecture in the harder-working rear hub to eliminate preload issues, and improved sealing all around helped immensely with longevity. The Vaults on this latest EC90 Aero55 Disc variant unfortunately use a more conventional layout with four radial cartridge bearings, but they still seem similarly promising.

The cartridge bearings are reassuringly big — especially up front — there are contact-type supplemental seals under each axle end cap, and the contact seal guarding the freehub internals is particularly snug-fitting. The 60-tooth ratchet ring yields a relatively speedy six-degree engagement speed, too, and each of the three steel pawls has two teeth that engage simultaneously to help spread out the load. Even the resultant sound is perfectly reasonable: definitely not silent, but not overly buzzy, either.

Bladed straight-pull spokes aren’t always the easiest to find if you need a replacement – especially in specific lengths – but Easton includes five spares with each wheelset. And on the upside, the straight-pull format and spoke flange design wouldn’t even require you to remove the cassette to install a new spoke, either.

Of course, a few weeks of riding in mostly dry conditions is hardly a worthy gauge of hub durability, but I did spray relatively high-pressure water directly at the hubs several times during my test period, and I never found any water inside. Nevertheless, I’d still recommend a liberal helping of a good waterproof grease underneath each axle end cap, just in case.

In the event anything does get in there, it’s laughably easy to perform basic maintenance. All of the end caps can be removed without tools, and the freehub body can be removed without tools as well.

The front Vault hub uses a more conventional-looking cylindrical shape. End caps can be swapped for different dropout formats, and while the rotor interface is exclusively offered in Center Lock, adapters can be used to accommodate six-bolt discs.

Tubeless setup was a cinch, too. I tested these wheels with 25mm Continental GP5000 TL, 32mm Bontrager R3 TLR, and 28mm Schwalbe One tubeless clinchers, and in each case, I could install the tires without levers and seat everything dry with a standard low-volume, high-pressure floor pump — just as it should be.

A solid choice for the cerebral buyer

Ok, back to my car analogy.

Truth be told, the VW GTI likely doesn’t come across as the most emotionally stirring choice to more casual drivers. Other options may offer more visceral performance, a more comprehensive package of cutting-edge technology, a more curvaceous aesthetic, or a brand name with more cachet. But it still ticks an awful lot of boxes for drivers more concerned with function than flash, and despite the boxy profile, the GTI is the box that just makes the most sense for a lot of people.

Ditto for these EC90 Aero55 Disc wheels.

Some buyers may not see Easton as having the same lustworthiness of something like Enve or Zipp, and although the EC90 Aero55 Discs are competitively priced, they’re still not a super high-value brand like Boyd or Hunt.

Nevertheless, the Fantom rim design is ageing very well and still offers outstanding aero performance, the Vault hubs promise good durability, the wheels are respectably light and easy to service, and it’s all backed by a major player in the segment. Conspicuously absent are any questionable gimmicks or over-the-top marketing claims — all function, little flash, just like that humble GTI.

When all of that is taken into account, you could obviously still go with something else, but suddenly the reasons to do so aren’t quite as compelling.

www.eastoncycling.com

The post Easton EC90 Aero55 Disc wheelset review: Flying under the radar appeared first on CyclingTips.

A small fleet of full suspension road bikes will line up for Paris-Roubaix under Team Sky on Sunday, each featuring a fully automatic lockout function developed by Italian firm HiRide. The technology was launched to the public this week on the back of the new Pinarello Dogma FS, but that’s simply the first bike to use it, not the last.

On Friday, we drove down to the Arenberg forest to try out HiRide’s clever electronically controlled full suspension tech for ourselves.

How the HiRide suspension works

The HiRide ESAS (Electronic Smart Adaptive Suspensions) system includes three distinct parts: rear suspension, front suspension, and a bundle of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and other electronics that lock and unlock the two shocks via electronically controlled hydraulic damping circuits.

The rear suspension, which offers 11mm of travel, is a simple elastomer setup with an electronically controlled hydraulic lockout. There are no pivots on either the Pinarello and the custom frames HiRide brought to our test. Suspension movement relies on flex from the chainstays. On the Pinarello Dogma FS, the first commercially available bike to use the HiRide system, those stays are carbon, but HiRide has been in discussions with another, unnamed frame brand that is planning to use titanium. The rear suspension is tunable by swapping the elastomer.

The system launched with a Pinarello road bike, but HiRide sees it as well suited to the gravel world. After riding it, I agree.

The front suspension offers 20mm of travel and uses a coil spring and hydraulic damping circuit, located between the head tube and the fork. This is a marked difference from the system’s most obvious competitor, the new Specialized Roubaix. The Roubaix places its Future Shock between the stem and the head tube, thus suspending the handlebars but not the rest of the bike. More on why that matters a bit later.

Coil springs can be swapped out to account for rider weight, but there is otherwise no way to adjust things like preload or spring rate to rider preference.

Far more interesting than the relatively simple suspension units is the electronic wizardry HiRide uses to control them. It’s here where the company’s ties to advanced automotive and motorcycle suspension bear fruit.

Buried in the downtube are a gyroscope and accelerometers, which feed data to a “Smart Battery Pack,” where the system’s brain lives. Based on data from these sensors, the system decides, effectively in real time (lag is less than .01 second), whether to lock or unlock the suspension.

The control box for the HiRide suspension.

The whole thing pairs with a custom Garmin app, which allows a rider to swap between manual mode and fully automatic mode, which locks and unlocks the suspension as it sees fit. This automatic system has Race and Touring modes. Race mode requires greater force to unlock the suspension. The system can also be controlled via a small button on the downtube.

Both shocks feature blowoff valves so that they unlock without any electronic input if you hit something while the system is locked out (the first row of cobbles on the Arenberg forest, for example).

The whole system is powered by a battery pack located in the downtube. It offers about 70 hours of ride time per charge, and charges in about two hours. The total weight penalty for the system is a claimed 690 grams. That’s actually quite light, if you think about it. It means you could easily build a bike under 8kg, about 17.6 lbs.

Does it work?

It does. There are a few areas where there’s room for improvement, but the automatic lockout function is particularly impressive.

First, the good. The lockout is highly effective. When locked, the bike feels like a road bike. There is no discernible movement from either the front or rear shock. If you don’t look down, you’d never know you’re on a full suspension bike. This may seem obvious, but it’s really important: Nobody wants a squishy-feeling road bike.

The automatic lockout system is really the heart of it all. It’s what allows the bike to feel like a road bike when you want it to feel like a road bike, and yet still offer far, far more compliance than any other system when you need that compliance. There is no real latency when you hit a patch of rough stuff. It unlocks in a fraction of a second and you can feel the system working once it’s open. Then you can feel it lock up again when things smooth out.

It does feel like HiRide spent most of its time developing this admittedly very clever automatic lockout system at the expense of development time on the shocks themselves. The front, in particular, was a bit underwhelming.

Developing suspension for bikes is already very difficult relative to other vehicles — there’s less mass on the system, less room for error, and greater weight constraints — and the shorter the travel, the harder it is to get it right. The elastomer rear feels quite good. The coil spring front shock, which in many ways resembles and feels like Cannondale’s old Headshok, doesn’t feel as smooth as I’d expected it to.

As part of the test, I ran the system unlocked on smooth pavement. As I had the system set up, the front shock sat at the top of its travel until I leaned into it, when it dropped quite suddenly through almost all of its travel. There was a bit of stiction in the system. Perhaps I needed a stiffer spring, or different sag settings. Perhaps it’s just a reality of such a short travel figure; the Future Shock is pretty easy to push through its travel, too.

I like that HiRide put the front shock below the headtube. Specialized’s argument for the Future Shock is that suspending the rider is more important than suspending the bike, and that doing so allows for active suspension without energy-wasting bob. It’s valid — a HiRide-style front shock without the automatic lockout would just take us back to the Headshok days, and we don’t want that on a road or gravel bike. But the automatic lockout changes things. It kills the bob that would be otherwise inherent in such a system.

Putting the shock on the fork allows the suspension to do what most suspension does, which is articulate a wheel around obstacles. That increases traction, and on bad surfaces can improve the overall efficiency of the system (in much the same was as a properly inflated tire will be faster over a rough surface than an overinflated tire).

Parting thoughts

Is this the future of road and gravel bikes? It’s not about to take over the world, no. It needs a bit more refinement. But the case for gravel suspension is quite good. And I could certainly see this used on road and gravel ebikes, where the weight would be irrelevant and the extra comfort very much in line with the targeted consumer.

I like the concept. I love the fact that the bike really does have two completely different personalities. On the road, it’s like the suspension isn’t even there. But hit something and it makes itself known. It’s seamless.

I large part of me wants to yell out, “just run bigger tires.” But the reality is that using tires as the sole mode of impact mitigation has its limitations. Tires can’t feature dampers or automatic lockout. They are only able to excel on a single surface at a time. There’s a reason why almost every wheeled vehicle humans have invented has suspension, and HiRide is indeed close to cracking the code to bringing it to road and gravel bikes.

We only got a few hours on the HiRide, and I want more. Keep an eye out for a long-term review down the line.

The post HiRide ESAS review: The full suspension road bike system used by Team Sky appeared first on CyclingTips.

Making a road shoe that’s lightweight is one thing; making one that’s lightweight without sacrificing functionality is another entirely. Specialized claims to have done just that with its latest S-Works Exos road shoes, which use a genuinely novel construction and some seriously out-of-the-box thinking to hit a remarkable weight target. Indeed, they’re as feathery as they’re claimed to be, and they’re also remarkably comfortable. However, they’re also unlike any other cycling shoe on the market, and you’ll definitely want to try them on before plunking down your credit card.

Back in the early 1990s, I had a pair of decidedly unusual road shoes from Nike called the System Ultra. Carbon fiber wasn’t widely used then, so in an effort to improve rigidity without adding thickness, the fiber-reinforced nylon sole was built with a pronounced beam that ran all the way from the cleat area to the heel (and interestingly enough, that three-bolt cleat area was also perfectly flat and required proprietary cleats).

Up top, things got even weirder.

The uppers were notably lacking in any sort of structure that you normally find in high-performance cycling shoes today, and instead used an airy mesh throughout, strategic panels of non-stretch material, and three Velcro straps. One of which wrapped around the back of your heel to hold that area of your foot in place as there was no conventional heel cup.

The Specialized S-Works Exos is unlike any other road shoe on the market – which is a good or a bad thing, depending on the shape of your foot and how you like your road shoes to feel.

They weren’t the most supportive shoes I’d used, but they were supremely comfy, and I wish I still had them, if only for nostalgic purposes. As it turns out, they were so short-lived (and seemingly quite rare) that an online search for images only turned up someone’s eBay auction.

Specialized’s new S-Works Exos shoes are obviously very different from those old Nikes, but I couldn’t help but think back to those shoes as I was going through this review process, because they’re similarly wacky.

Much like the System Ultra, there’s no hard plastic heel cup to be found here. Up front, the entire toe box area is enveloped by a layer of stretchy material borrowed from the separate lace cover that Specialized once included with its S-Works Sub6 lace-up shoes. In the middle are multiple layers of non-stretch Dyneema fabric, plus a single center-mounted Boa IP1 two-way micro-adjustable dial that tightens up an unusually short tongue area.

Unlike other S-Works shoes of late, the Exos has no hard plastic heel cup – either external or internal. In fact, there’s barely any structure to the shoe at all, either in that area or elsewhere.

Down below is a lightened version of the carbon fiber plate that Specialized uses for its S-Works 7 shoe, with four giant holes along the outer edge to shave precious grams, titanium inserts for the three-hole cleat area, and a pared-down tread around the toe area (the replaceable heel pad is shared with the S-Works 7).

Even the Body Geometry footbed is lighter than usual, boasting the same shaping as standard Body Geometry insoles, but made with a lower-density foam.

As expected, all that gram-shaving adds up big-time. Specialized claims that a pair of size 42 S-Works Exos shoes tips the scales at a scant 300g. Actual weight for my size 43 samples? Bang-on at 315g. For the sake of reference, a comparable pair of Specialized S-Works Sub6 shoes comes in at 348g, and Giro’s feathery Prolight Techlace is just a single gram heavier at 316g.

Retail price is a heady US$500 / AU$600 / £450.

So weird, but mostly in a good way

Even when just pulling the S-Works Exos shoes out of the box, they immediately come across as… unusual. Without the structure that you normally find in more conventional road shoes, they look rather wrinkly, and the Dyneema center section almost feels like paper in your hands. You can squish them flat like a pair of ballet slippers.

But it’s also impossible not to notice how light they feel when you pick them up.

The toe box area is radically stretchy, which feels weird at first, but is supremely comfortable out on the road.

Getting them on your feet is somewhat different than usual, too. The heel area wants to just crumple under pressure — hence the little pull tab on the back to facilitate the process — and since the throat of the shoe is shorter than typical, it’s a little harder to get your foot into the S-Works Exos in general. The instant-release function on the Boa IP1 dial helps immensely, but as I said in my review of the S-Works Sub6 lace-ups, I once again feel like Specialized missed a grand marketing opportunity by not including a branded shoehorn (made of FACT carbon fiber, natch).

But once they were on, I’m not sure I’ve ever worn a pair of cycling shoes that were so damned comfy. The stretchy toe box, in particular, is a revelation. So you say your forefoot is more squared-off or wider than how road cycling shoes are usually shaped? Or you’ve got some problematic bunions, maybe? Your prayers have been answered, at least as far as that aspect of life is concerned.

Previous complaints that the plastic heel cups on Specialized’s S-Works 7 and 6 generations are too aggressively shaped can be cast aside as well, seeing as how there’s no heel cup at all. Narrow heel, wide heel, bone spurs, whatever — with no hard points back there, there’s simply nothing to potentially irritate sensitive areas.

Specialized builds the middle part of the shoe with high-tech Dyneema fabric, which is paper-thin, yet extremely resistant to stretch. It’s not unlike paper in some ways, though, so it’s very difficult to completely eliminate wrinkling in something this complex in shape.

Naturally, Specialized’s usual Body Geometry features are still present and accounted for, such as the generous arch support built into the carbon sole, the varus wedge that cants your foot slightly outward, and the subtle bump in the insole that supposedly keeps your toes from falling asleep. As always, whether those features work for you is a matter of personal preference, but given how many shoes Specialized has sold to date with all of these items included, they at least seem to be working for most people.

Pedaling away

How a cycling shoe feels in your living room and how it feels while riding are often two different things, but it’s mostly good news here.

The shoes’ Dyneema center section does a surprisingly good job of holding that area tight, and the well-shaped upper wraps evenly around my feet. The lack of structure results in some unsightly wrinkling up around the front of toe box, but there’s no wrinkling elsewhere that might otherwise indicate a sloppy fit. Overall, there’s a general sensation that there’s nothing on your feet, and my hunch is that it has far more to do with this light-handed hold and the wispiness of the upper materials than the shoes’ actual weight. The strategically placed padding around the edges of the ankle opening and in the tongue does an admirable job of providing a bit of additional coddling comfort, too.

Could this shoe have been constructed without Dyneema? My hunch is yes, but it likely would have ended up feeling pretty different.

Despite having all of those extra holes in the sole, I also didn’t notice any difference in stiffness relative to the S-Works 7 (or the S-Works 6, for that matter). The platform feels as solid as ever, and anyone worried about flex should cast those concerns aside.

What I did notice, however, is how all that minimalist construction makes for a supremely airy shoe; seriously, nearly the entire upper is practically transparent. In fact, Specialized should almost consider pitching these as a hot-weather shoe rather than a lightweight one, as never have my feet been so cold in such moderate temperatures. I honestly have yet to wear these on a truly hot day, but when that day comes, these will absolutely be the first shoes I reach for.

Ok, so these are starting to sound like super shoes, no? Not so fast.

There’s only the slightest bit of structural reinforcement around the front of the toe box. As a result, there’s bound to be some wrinkling of the fabric.

Specialized footwear design director Rob Cook mentioned to me shortly after the shoe’s debut in February that the development timeline on this model was actually delayed by a full year, purely because of how many additional prototypes had to be made (and tested) compared to a more typical shoe. Without a heel cup, and without any additional structure elsewhere in the shoe, it was far more important to get the shape right.

But the light feel that results definitely isn’t going to be universally satisfying, and I, for one, found myself missing that aggressive plastic heel cup found elsewhere in Specialized’s S-Works road range. The stretchy toe box didn’t bother me one bit — and in fact, I’d like to see the concept expanded — but I often found myself wishing for more stability out back.

Without a structure to help hold my heel in place, I ended up cranking down on the Boa dial more than I would have preferred in an effort to lock down the rear of my foot. However, this just ended up placing more pressure on the top of my foot instead of improving the heel hold. This issue will undoubtedly be exacerbated for people with narrower heels (and I’d put myself in that category); riders with medium-to-larger heels might not have the same issue, as the volume of the rear of the shoe might suit their anatomy better.

“It feels like you’re riding flats with one of those PowerStraps over the top of your Vans,” said CyclingTips editor-in-chief Caley Fretz. “Your toes wiggle around, and your heel doesn’t feel all that secure, but the middle of your foot is locked in. That feeling is not necessarily a terrible thing, but it’s just very different from any shoe I’ve worn before.” Caley has a narrow heel and also ended up cranking down on the Boa more than he’d have liked, which he says put too much pressure across the middle of his foot.

Specialized didn’t pare weight at all cost, mind you. There’s still some high-density foam padding around the edges of the ankle opening, as well as in the tongue.

Riders with particularly wide or high-volume feet will also want to note that the transition between the stretchy toe box area and non-stretch Dyneema midsection offers one potential pinch point. Up front, it’s so accommodating that you can almost go down a half-size, and in the midsection, you can easily adjust things with the Boa dial. But right at that transition, the overall girth of the shoe is fixed, and if it doesn’t work for you, there’s nothing you can do about it.

Finally, I have some serious reservations about the long-term durability of these things. That stretchy toe box is fantastic for comfort, but the material feels pretty fragile, and there’s only the slightest bit of reinforcement around the forward edge. Got toe overlap on your bike? Look elsewhere.

I’m also not down with Specialized’s decision to pare down the tread at the toe. I understand the desire to shave grams, but let’s get real here; most of the people wearing these will be paying for them with their own money, not getting them for free in a sponsorship deal. And while it’s nice that the heel tread is still replaceable, my test sample is already showing wear where the forward edges of the carbon sole are exposed. Given the premium price tag associated with these, it’d be nice to see some effort paid to making them last longer.

Mixed opinions

Let me state for the record that Specialized shoes are generally some of my favorites: they fit me well, the Body Geometry features suit me, and I usually find them to be very comfortable and supportive for long rides. Currently, my go-to pair is an older set of white S-Works Sub6 lace-ups that I’ll be nursing for as long as possible.

But all that said, neither Caley nor I could quite fall in love with these. Riders looking to shave every last gram, or are specifically looking for an ultralight feel, will find an awful lot to like here. That Specialized managed to provide as much support as it did given the feathery weight is an impressive feat, no doubt.

To be clear, I like these quite a bit. If Specialized can just add a heel cup to these without changing much else, I’ve little doubt that I’d be in love.

www.specialized.com

The small pull tab at the back is handy for getting the shoes on.

The instant-release Boa IP1 helps make up for the fact that the tongue opening is so short.

The flexible heel area definitely comforms to your anatomy somewhat, but riders will narrower heels will likely still find the hold back there to be a little lacking.

Why isn’t there one of those fancy Specialized-exclusive aluminum Boa dials here? Almost certainly because it’s heavier than the standard plastic one.

The shoe on the right has a cardboard insert inside of it to help simulate what it’d look like with a foot inside of it. The one on the left is empty, and pretty much collapses flat on its own. It’s strange, but it seems to work – and it’s also very handy in terms of saving space in your luggage when it comes time to travel somewhere.

The carbon sole is a modified version of what Specialized uses o the S-Works 7. Those holes go all the way through, but the foam insole only has matching cutouts around the toe, so it’s entirely clear how much of an effect these have on ventilation.

Despite the pared-down shape, there’s seemingly no difference in stiffness between these and the standard S-Works models.

Specialized’s Body Geometry features are present and accounted for as usual, including the arch support that’s built into the carbon sole.

The replaceable heel tread is the same as what’s used on the S-Works 7, but the toe tread is pared down to save a few grams – weight savings poorly spent, in my book.

It doesn’t take long for the forward edge of the shoe to get scuffed. Tread (extremely) lightly, unless you get these for free by the case.

The post Specialized S-Works Exos road shoe review: Ultralight, but not for everyone appeared first on CyclingTips.

Sarto is an Italian frame manufacturer with a massive 60 years of experience, but it wasn’t until 2010 that the company started putting its own name on its frames. This was well after Sarto had made the transition from working with steel to carbon composites, however the company has retained its traditional approach to the craft. Thus, all of the models in its current catalogue are bespoke offerings that are made-to-order in Sarto’s Veneto factory.

That includes the Lampo Plus, Sarto’s latest creation, which stands as one of the very few bespoke aero road bikes in the world. Our former Australian tech editor, and now monthly contributor, Matt Wikstrom, dives into the details and shares his impressions on this Italian superbike.

The story behind Sarto goes back to the end of World War II when Antonio Sarto and his brothers starting picking up some work finishing frames for a couple of local frame builders. Antonio was just a teenager at the time, but the work was promising, and a few years later, in 1950, he established the workshop that bears his name.

Sarto’s ambitions were modest, perhaps due to his humble beginnings in the industry. Rather than striving to become a recognised brand, Antonio was content with sub-contracting for others. The company started building frames in 1959, and from there, the business slowly grew. Sarto soon gained an enviable reputation as more and more (typically Italian) riders and brands made use of the company’s services.

Antonio’s son, Enrico, took over control of the company in the ‘90s at the age of 18, but only after his father agreed to remain involved with the business. The two started planning a new, larger factory, yet Sarto was still content to brand its work with the names of others. The company has always been coy about revealing the names of its clients, but those that have been mentioned — Moser, Masi, Willier, Guerciotti, Fondriest, and Pinarello — suggest an impressive portfolio.

As Sarto entered the new millennium, the company seemed to make the transition from steel to carbon fibre with ease. Sarto created its first custom composite frame in 2002, then set about rebuilding and expanding its catalogue from there. In an era when many storied brands started looking to the East to remain competitive, Sarto remained in business — in Italy, no less — by preserving its bespoke approach to the craft.

In 2010, Sarto started doing something for the first time: selling frames with its own name on them. After decades of manufacturing frames for others, the company was prepared to introduce itself to consumers.

The Lampo Plus resembles the current crop of sleek aero road bikes from the major manufacturers in almost every way, except one: the size and geometry of the frame can be varied to suit the customer’s exact needs.

A custom aero road frameset

Every frame in Sarto’s catalogue is made-to-measure and built-to-order to suit the customer. To this end, tube-to-tube construction affords the company the freedom it needs to vary the stack and reach of a frame and to modify the head and seat tube angles as required. It’s a time-consuming and labour-intensive process that adds to the cost of the frame, of course, but for those riders that fall outside the norm, there is the promise of a better fitting (and handling) bike.

Aside from personalised geometry, this approach allows Sarto to offer its customers a variety of options, such as the choice of bottom bracket shell, cable routing to suit different groupsets (i.e. powered versus unpowered), and of course, a personalised finish for the frame. These kind of options are de rigueur for any custom framebuilder, but for an aero road bike like the Lampo Plus, they are very unusual.

Sarto added its first aero road chassis, the Lampo, to its catalogue for 2015. The Lampo’s styling was a clear departure from Sarto’s other offerings, featuring many of the hallmarks that have come to define an aero road frame: kammtails throughout the front triangle, lowered seatstays, a fork crown that nestles into the down tube, and internalisation of the cables and seatpost clamp. Sarto used CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamic) analysis to design and optimise each of these features so as to minimise the drag of the bike, which included the addition of aerodynamic tripwires to the fork legs and the underside of the down tube.

The Lampo Plus keeps pace with current aero road bike trends by concealing all of the gear cables and brake hoses within the bars, stem and frame.

The Lampo must have been received with some enthusiasm because Sarto recently added a second iteration to its collection, the Lampo Plus. Two years in the making, the new frameset embraces disc brakes and internal routing through an oversized stem to hide all cables/hoses/wires from the wind. The result is a very sleek superbike that is arguably faster than the original design and a worthy peer for the current crop of aero wünder-bikes from mass-manufacturers such as Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, Cervelo, BMC, and Giant.

Aero-weenies will no doubt be left wondering how the aerodynamics of the Lampo Plus compare with those other brands, but there is no data for this yet. Sarto is planning to test the bike in a wind tunnel, but until then, the company makes no specific claims other than to label it as the fastest bike in its collection.

More on the nitty-gritty

The Lampo Plus shares many of the same features as the Lampo, including the weight for a raw frame (950g), a tapered head tube and fork steerer (1.125-1.5in), and the choice of four bottom bracket shells (BB86, BSA, BB30, or BB386). The two models also share the same stiffness value (120N/mm), which makes them a little stiffer than Sarto’s all-rounder, the Seta (115N/mm), yet not quite as stiff as the Dinamica (130N/mm).

Sarto builds all of its frame in Italy, in the Metropolitan City of Venice, to be exact.

As mentioned above, the Lampo Plus is available with disc brakes only, with fittings to suit flat mount callipers and 12mm thru-axles, front and rear. The bike is supplied with an integrated bar and stem that allows the brake hoses and gear cables/wires to be internally routed from the levers into the frame and onto the callipers and derailleurs via a cavity in the head tube. The routing system accommodates powered and unpowered groupsets with a minimum of fuss, but all of that internal routing will add time when building and maintaining the bike.

Sarto has designed interlocking spacers for the stem that can be separated and removed to make minor alterations to the height of the bars, but there is not much slack in the cables and hoses to help with this. Tearing down the bike down for travel will also be difficult: the bars can be unbolted from the stem, but with no way to separate them, there won’t be much freedom for arranging the various pieces in a hard case. Travellers will be better off using a soft case where the handlebars/stem can be left in place.

Sarto’s chunky stem dominates the front end of the bike to some extent, and while there were times when I found myself thinking of it as a dashboard, it didn’t take long for me to become accustomed to it. For those wondering about how they would attach their preferred bike computer, there is a pair of threaded holes on the underside of the stem for attaching an out-front mount. That same mount should also provide a solution for mounting a light for early morning or late afternoon training sessions.

An oversized stem makes it possible to conceal bulky mechanical gear cables with ease.

The upper part of the stem is largely decorative, just undo the small bolt…

… to reveal the guts of the operation.

The cables and hoses are threaded neatly from within the handlebars to the frame. Needless to say, the length of each needs to be carefully measured for the best fit.

A traditional clamp allows the angle of the bars to be adjusted, but only a little.

Like other brands, Sarto created a system of interlocking headset spacers that can be removed without dismantling the cables and hoses.

The cables and hoses are routed through a cavity in the head tube to keep them clear of the fork steerer.

The gear cables and rear brake hose are routed through the down tube of the frame while the front brake hose pierces the crown to travel through the fork leg to the front disc brake.

The sample provided for this review arrived bearing Sarto’s standard medium frame geometry, which provided a 550mm effective top tube and 147mm head tube with a 72.5° head angle, 74° seat tube angle, and 405mm seatstays. Those numbers are familiar for a race-oriented bike, but there’s no point in dwelling on them since Sarto will adjust them to suit each buyer. To this end, Sarto offers three stem lengths (100, 110, 120mm), three handlebar widths, (400, 420, 440mm), and two seatposts (0 or 21mm of offset) to help with fine-tuning the fit and angles of the Lampo Plus.

Regarding the finish of the frame, prospective buyers can consider the Lampo Plus a blank canvas. In the first instance, Sarto offers customers the freedom to choose up to four colours for any of its standard schemes at no extra charge. Beyond that, there will be a charge in line with the amount of time required to render the final finish.

The complete bike, as supplied, weighed 7.96kg/17.5lb without pedals, which is not really surprising for a disc brake-equipped bike, aero or otherwise. Aero-weenies will probably forgive the extra weight — provided they have faith in Sarto’s CFD analysis — while weight-weenies will look elsewhere, such as Sarto’s Asola, which has a claimed raw frame weight of 700g.

At €5,670 (+VAT)/~AUD$11,000/US$NA/£6,499, the Lampo Plus is obviously expensive, but compared to other high-end bespoke offerings, it’s not unusual. It’s also worth noting that the price includes the frame, fork, headset, stem, spacers, bars, seatpost, bidon cages, and thru-axles, as well as custom geometry, personalised paint, five-year warranty, and a crash replacement option for the first three-years of ownership.

For those customers that are able to visit Sarto in Italy, they will be able to spend time in the company’s fitting studio and with their graphic designer to decide the details of their order. Otherwise, buyers can place an order with one of the Sarto’s international retailers. In either instance, there will be a waiting period of around two months once an order has been placed.

Burning up the tarmac

Sarto may not have any wind tunnel data to woo shoppers, but the sleek lines of the bike work well to satisfy any rider’s definition of a fast bike. Out in the wild, the bike certainly didn’t have any trouble attracting onlookers and drawing compliments. Yes, it shares at least a few similarities with other aero road bikes, but that’s more reassuring than not, since these are the kind of features that have proven effective at reducing the aerodynamic drag of a bike whilst satisfying the UCI’s strict rules.

Those sleek lines, and the luxurious price tag, do raise expectations for a bike that might challenge the speed of sound. At the very least, most would hope that their socks would be lost along the way after throwing their leg over the bike for the first time. However, there is no beast under the bonnet; rather, the Lampo Plus is a sedate and well-mannered bike that feels a whole lot more traditional than its styling would otherwise suggest.

From the outset, the bike was immediately inviting with stable handling and predictable steering. When combined with a subdued ride quality and a fit that was close to ideal, the Lampo Plus often evaded my senses. It was simply smooth and quiet with just a murmur of feedback that I could tap into when required.

The compliance of the chassis hit the sweet spot for me: stiff enough for my weight, sturdy enough for my (modest) power, yet forgiving enough to encourage me to stay on the bike. There was still something of an edge associated with the Lampo Plus that was appealing when I was riding in anger, but it didn’t dominate the bike, so when I was ready to cruise, it was able to accommodate my change in mood.

The Lampo Plus was a calm and easygoing presence in any environment. When the roads were rough, it was easy to concentrate on my effort because the bike remained largely unperturbed; up in the hills, all I needed was a comfortable gear to contend with any slope; and when the road tipped downwards, I was able to settle back and let the bike roll as fast as I dared.

The end result was the Lampo Plus often disappeared from under me, and it was a pleasing sensation, one that I associate with the best of the bikes that I have ever ridden and owned. If I had the opportunity to fine tune the geometry and decide the final finish, then I’m sure I would be able to live with the Lampo Plus for a very long time.

However, it did leave me wondering whether it had any free speed to offer, because I couldn’t feel it. That’s when I put it up against my own bike, a Baum Corretto. With round frame tubing, external cables, and low-profile rims, it is the antithesis of the Lampo Plus, at least in terms of aerodynamics, and therefore, a decent benchmark for a back-to-back test.

Three laps of a mildly undulating 3.2km circuit were completed on each bike at a self-determined tempo pace and the results were clear: I was almost 2s/km (18s over 9.7km) faster on the Lampo Plus. That extra speed went completely unnoticed, to the point where I was convinced it was a very close race until I saw the numbers. The only way I could go faster on my Corretto was to push harder.

Of course, this brief showdown is a long way from a rigorous study, but I’m convinced the Lampo Plus has some free speed to offer buyers. It’s not enough to overhaul a rider’s capabilities, but it might help some crack a few PBs for flat or mildly undulating courses/segments. When coupled with Sarto’s bespoke service, the Lampo Plus should suit any rider that has been longing for an aero road bike that provides a better fit than what the mass-market has to offer.

Campagnolo’s 12-speed mechanical Super Record groupset was a pleasing match for the Lampo Plus, if only on sentimental grounds, yet it lived up to the hype (and price) associated with it. As a long-time user of Campagnolo’s groupsets, I have a bias, but I was still surprised by how much I enjoyed the new transmission.

I still remember my first experience with an 11-speed transmission: the extra sprocket seemed like a luxury rather than a necessity, and several years passed by before I made the jump for my own bike. This time around, the 12th sprocket really feels like it adds an extra gear.

This won’t apply to all riders, though. For example, for those that already have an 11-32T cassette, or similar, fitted to their bikes, the 12th sprocket may go unnoticed. In my case, I routinely use 11-25T or 11-27T cassettes, so the 11-32T that was fitted to the Lampo Plus provided a couple of extra lower gears on the bike without sacrificing a smooth (1T) transition between the higher gears (11-17T). Every time I looked down at the cassette, I was often surprised (delighted!) to find I had more lower gears in reserve, regardless of whether I was using the big (50T) or the small (34T) ring.

The quality of the shifting was as smooth and crisp as it should be for a brand new high-end groupset, despite the fact that full-length housings were used for routing the cables through the Lampo Plus to each derailleur. In the past, this is the kind of thing that could have interfered with the quality of shifting — adding weight to the throw of the shift lever, for example — but not so in this case. I presume this has a lot to do with Campagnolo’s new low-friction cables, and if so, I’m a fan.

As for the rest of the group, I found it hard to judge the quality of Campagnolo’s disc brakes because the brake levers were fitted to the callipers “euro-style” (right lever, rear brake). I prefer to control the front brake with my right hand, so I simply felt clumsy when using my left hand. Nevertheless, the braking action was as smooth and powerful as any good disc brake.

The cranks developed a small knock after the first week or two of use, which was caused by some lateral play of the bearings in the bottom bracket cups. This had nothing to do with the press-fit cups per se; rather, it was the width of the BB86 bottom bracket shell (which measured 85.5mm). Campagnolo’s Ultra Torque crank design offers only a limited amount of adjustment for bearing pre-load (in the form of a wavy-washer), so the shell must satisfy Campagnolo’s specifications (86.5±0.5mm) for a good fit. In this instance, an extra wavy washer is one simple remedy; otherwise, a shim (0.5-1.0mm) could be fitted to the non-drive-side cup to address the shortfall.

Summary and final thoughts

The aero road bike market has grown a lot in the last ten years with several major brands investing heavily in research and development to create some very slippery bikes. Indeed, Cervélo, Trek, Specialized, and BMC, amongst others, have done a lot to move the form out of its infancy to the point where a sound aero frameset has become almost indispensable for competition. While appreciation for aerodynamics is at an all-time high, the sleekest framesets are only available in a limited number of sizes, which can have an effect on the position of some riders and detract from their performance.

Sarto is not the first manufacturer to offer consumers a bespoke aero road frameset, but the Lampo Plus is more astute and sophisticated (in terms of aerodynamics) than earlier offerings from Alchemy and Formiglia. At this stage, there is no hard data on how the Lampo Plus compares to the market leaders, but at the very least it will be sleeker than a traditional bespoke frame lacking aerodynamic features.

While the Lampo Plus may be something of a problem-solver for riders that have had trouble achieving their desired fit on a mass-produced aero road bike, it also ticks some other boxes, albeit at a premium price. For example, there is the exclusivity of a bespoke product from a workshop that has decades of frame-building experience. There is also the romance and prestige (perceived or otherwise) associated with any bike that is made in Italy. Add to that the bike’s sleek lines and superbike styling, and the Lampo Plus may be hard for some to resist.

www.sartobikes.com

The post Sarto Lampo Plus frameset review appeared first on CyclingTips.

New for 2019, the Revolt Advanced is Giant’s first carbon gravel-focussed steed. Built with performance in mind, it’s a clear departure from Giant’s previous and surprisingly numerous gravel-styled models.

I spent the past couple months riding the Revolt Advanced 0 and came away impressed. It’s not only a great leap above the Giant ToughRoad SLR I tested a year earlier, but it’s also simply a great bike.

Built to handle either 650B or 700c wheels, it features a couple of smart comfort features and a build kit that makes it impressively good value for money. In short, the Revolt Advanced is a bike well worth discussing.

Simple, done well.

From a company that needs little introduction, the Revolt is an in-house affair. It’s built using Giant’s self-named “Advanced” series of carbon composite – effectively a mid-grade mix that’s a little lower on the modulus scale than what’s used in Giant’s top-tier race bikes.

With familiar angular tube profiles, a sloping toptube and lowly set seatstays, the Revolt is distinctively Giant. It retains Giant’s common fitments too. A Shimano-standard pressfit BB86 bottom bracket shell connects with a somewhat aero-styled, minimalist seat tube. The boxy downtube makes full use of the shell surface area, too.

While the chainstays are set asymmetrically, that’s hard to see. Both chainstays are dropped, just not in an exaggerated fashion, and Giant manages to fit up to a 700x45c or (650Bx50mm) tyre in the rear by thinning the driveside stay to just 11mm. And that’s all with a normal sub-compact crankset and stubby 425mm chainstays.

The toptube tapers to become remarkably skinny before it meets the seatpost’s integrated wedge-type clamp. Giant’s long-running D-Fuse seatpost features a flat back edge, and is designed to flex rearward, while remaining rigid in other planes. It’s a concept the new Specialized Roubaix boasts, but Giant has done so since 2014 with the Defy Advanced.

The Revolt Advanced puts most of its compliance into the seatpost and handlebar.

The front of the bike features no integrated suspension or pivot point; rather it’s kept simple and fuss-free. However, Giant achieves comfort and control through its new Contact XR D-Fuse handlebar which features a flattened and flexible shape like the seatpost. In the case of my Advanced 0 sample, it’s an alloy bar with a subtle “aero” shaping and noticeably skinny shaping as it nears the stem’s clamping area.

The Revolt is the first time such a handlebar has appeared, but my guess is we’ll see it on the next generation of Giant’s endurance bikes, too.

Giant uses internal cable routing for both the hydraulic brake hoses and gear cables, and the frame is Di2 ready. 12mm thru-axles and flat mount brakes are all expected sights too. And here’s a nice touch: the front derailleur mount is removable for a clean 1x setup.

Stuck onto the frame, the rubber guards ward off rock strikes and chain slap.

Showing the bike’s off-road intention, both the downtube and driveside chainstay are covered by rubber guards, with the former there to protect the frame from rock strikes. It’s something that’s commonly done on modern mountain bikes, and makes perfect sense for gravel, too.

The Revolt is ready to carry stuff. Three bidon cage mounts are provided, one of which is underneath the downtube. The fork offers central bolts on the legs for universal accessories and is ready for fenders, too. The rear stealthily hides its standard fender and pannier mounts behind a small cover until called on. That said, there are no provisions for a bolt-on “Bento” bag and the sloping toptube greatly reduces space for a frame bag.

Unlike Giant’s performance road bikes, this one features a standard 1 1/8in tapered head tube – allowing regular stems to be fitted. It’s the same full carbon fork up front across all six frame sizes, each featuring the same relatively outstretched 50mm fork rake.

Builds to match

Giant offers the Revolt Advanced in a number of different builds. I tested the top-tier version, the Advanced 0.

It’s impressive to see carbon tubeless wheels on a bike of this price. Especially when you consider nothing else on the bike has been sacrificed as a result.

One of the more impressive value aspects of the build is Giant’s own composite wheelset, the CXR1. These wheels offer 21mm internal width disc-specific carbon rims, Sapim butted spokes and hubs with DT Swiss 3-pawl internals. And no different to every other Giant performance bike, the Revolt comes setup tubeless straight from the box. Just inject the provided tyre sealant, inflate and go. It couldn’t be simpler, and the tyre and rim combo inflate with ease. Those tyres are Giant’s own and from a reputable manufacturer.

The drivetrain is equally well-thought-out too, with Shimano Ultegra hydro discs and mechanical shifting equipped with the new (yet already superseded) clutch-equipped RX rear derailleur.

Giant doesn’t use a Shimano crank, and for good reason. At the time of creating (and testing) this bike, Shimano hadn’t yet produced a gravel-friendly sub-compact crank, and so Praxis Works’ Zayante is a proven alternative. With 48/32T gearing on the front, and an 11-34T at back, the Revolt has range.

Giant finishes off the build with the previously mentioned handlebar and seatpost, an aluminium stem (with normal clamp diameters!), and Giant’s own saddle. Of all the components, the seatpost is the only truly proprietary piece, with everything else offering a standard fitment for potential customisation.

My medium sample weighed 8.72kg without pedals, setup tubeless. Not super light for a carbon rig, but highly competitive given the price.

Little jolt (or to fault) with the Revolt

When I last tested a gravel bike from Giant, I was somewhat underwhelmed. The bike was impressively cheap and built to take a beating, but the way it handled lacked finesse and energy. It always felt sluggish, regardless of the terrain.

The Revolt Advanced is quite the contrast to that, now more sporty and eager to respond on tarmac, groads and trails. And that’s despite the geometry chart suggesting it’s not all that different to its alloy predecessor.

A tight chainstay length and increased fork rake help make the Revolt Advanced feel more nimble.

Where Giant’s ToughRoad SLR was too long in the rear end, too tall in the front end and too floppy in its handling; the Revolt Advanced makes the necessary corrections. With the stock 700x40c rubber (measures an actual 39mm), the trail figure sits at a reasonable but not overly quick-feeling 72mm.

Geometry of the Revolt Advanced. Measurements are in millimeters.

The Revolt Advanced is no slouch and it certainly allows you to comfortably hold good pace over varying terrain. To pick a cliched bike review term, its handling is best described as balanced. And while coming off faster bikes can have the Revolt Advanced feeling a little docile, or even uneventful, at no point was I left blaming its steering on missing a corner.

Out for testing in 650B mode. The bike becomes more playful with these wheels, but at a cost.

Swapping in 650B wheels brought the Revolt Advanced alive, and I found it raring to tip into a direction change. A reduced diameter brings the bottom bracket lower too, and where the Revolt’s 70mm bottom bracket drop can occasionally feel on the high side with 700x40c hoops, the smaller wheels help the bike feel truly planted on corners. The smaller wheels also solve the whisp of toe overlap present with the stock 40c rubber – but even with the bigger wheels, it’s so minor I frankly never noticed it, even when riding technical singletrack.

700×40 (39mm actual) on the left, versus 650Bx1.9in (51mm actual) on the right.

The 650B wheels were a fun experiment, but I still preferred how the Revolt performed across a wider variety of terrain with its stock 700c hoops. Its high bottom bracket height means I never had to worry about pedal strikes, and the improved efficiency on the road was ideal for piecing together my local trails and segments of gravel. That’s good for the Revolt, as its tyre clearance is certainly better optimised for larger rims, whereas I wouldn’t want to risk squeezing in anything wider than 51mm (1.9in) when running 650B.

The single fork rake across all frame sizes may upset some (I’m not able to provide feedback on the sizes above and below my medium sample) but I suspect the outcome shouldn’t change greatly.

The Revolt’s balanced handling has a lot to do with how composed it remains on rough and/or loose surface. Seated comfort is great, and a look down at the seatpost while riding rough terrain reveals a visible amount of rearward flex from the post, made all the more pliable by the sloping toptube. It’s enough that I was happy to stay in the saddle on rocky terrain where less comfortable bikes would force me to stand. Likewise, that pliability helps to keep the bike planted, where stiffer bikes would likely see the tyres skip.

I got along great with the bar shape. The flare is marginal, and I liked the curved back sweep and short reach. And in case they aren’t to your liking, any 31.8mm bar can be fitted in its place.

The flex at the handlebar isn’t as apparent, however, it does help with reducing hand fatigue. High-frequency bumps don’t transmit quite the same discomfort as normal, and more obvious impacts have the edge removed, too. Where the bars are clearly outpaced is on high-speed rough bumps, like braking bumps – but then, even suspension typically struggles in such a scenario.

Given the handlebars rely on leverage to flex, it wasn’t too surprising to sense more trail feedback when riding on the tops compared to the hoods on drops where the lever to flex is longer. And if the bars were made too flexy, the front handling would suffer. In out-of-the-saddle sprints or uphill attacks I didn’t notice the bar as being any different to a normal one. Likewise, pointing and ploughing the bike through stones sees it stay on track. If anything, the slight flex of the bar helps keep the bike composed.

Ride comfort, rolling speed and weight could be further improved with a swap of tyres. Though while they lack suppleness, I actually didn’t mind Giant’s CrossCut tyres, and despite the name and a few moments of feeling the tyre bottom heavily against the rim, I didn’t suffer any cuts or scary breaks in traction.

The carbon hoops certainly benefited the Revolt’s willingness to go fast, and the wheels remained (mostly) true and spun smoothly all test. However, the spokes pinged excessively straight from the box – revealing that Giant could do more to stress relieve its obviously machine-built wheels. I didn’t have the bike long enough to experience issues as a result, but I’d suggest passing the wheels to an experienced wheel builder for re-tensioning after a few months of use.

Although its no longer Shimano’s best groupset for a bike like this, the Ultegra components performed without fault. The clutch-equipped RX rear derailleur does exactly what you need, and wards off chain slap noise and dropped chains. The Praxis sub-compact crank and HG-800 cassette worked well together, and I found they provided a range pretty ideal for handling both road and trail rides.

The press-fit bottom bracket can be a polarising choice, but my sample remained whisper quiet all test, and in my experience, Giant provides little reason to hate on the system. Meanwhile, the minimalist seat tube offers no support to the front derailleur, and so you can’t install it with the recommended backstop – not a deal breaker, but the front shifting isn’t the snappiest it could be.

This wedge was reliable at holding the post, until it wasn’t. It briefly proved a little fussy before returning to doing what it should.

As the only truly proprietary part on the bike, I was briefly frustrated with a slipping seatpost. It was good for the first month of testing, but then ruined a couple of rides. I pulled the post out, cleaned the tube, liberally re-applied fresh carbon grease and used a torque wrench to the maximum 6nm. The trick was learning that the post-wedge settles into place — giving the post a flex and wiggle in the frame, and tightening the bolt to the correct torque again helped ensure it remained in place.

Finally, I’m not such a fan of the paint. Sure the stealth matte black paint with gloss graphics looks classy, but like other matte paints, it sucks to clean. There’s always an uneven gloss or shine left behind, often caused by your own fingerprints. Certainly, for a bike that’s constantly dirtied, matte wasn’t the best pick.

Oh that person? Yeah, they’re nice.

For me, the Revolt Advanced is a near perfect example of what makes a good gravel bike. It has a generous gearing range, plenty of tyre clearance, good comfort, great versatility and get-it-done handling that lets you focus on what’s in front and not what the bike is doing beneath you.

It feels almost like an endurance road bike on smooth tarmac, albeit with a bit more drag to pedal. It effortlessly holds speed and takes just enough buzz away when ridden on well-kept gravel. And on tougher neglected gravel roads or trails, it’s fearless and able.

I really liked my time riding this bike, but in a weird sense, I also wished it interacted or even fought me just a little more. The Giant Revolt Advanced is the person at the party that can talk to everyone regardless of the situation; the person everyone says is super nice, and yet somehow, lacks that certain spark that sets them apart.

But does that even matter when the Revolt Advanced 0 retails at just US$3,465 / AU$4,299? For what you get, that’s amazingly good value.

Gallery

There’s plenty to like in the Revolt Advanced. This gallery takes a closer look at a number of details.

Cables are routed internally, entering at the headtube. The front brake hose is routed through the fork, although I quickly lost the rubber grommet that seals the hose from the top.

Common to see, the front fork is more generous with tyre clearance than the rear.

The D-Fuse seatpost is designed to flex, and flex it does.

The D-Fuse seatpost shaping continues down the minimalist seattube too. It’s sculpted out for tyre clearance.

Giant uses 160mm disc rotors front and rear. The rotors selected are not Ice-Tech and were chosen to save costs – I didn’t miss them. Note the covered pannier and fender mounts at the end of the seatstays.

The Ultegra RX clutch-equipped rear derailleur, sub-compact crank and 11-34T cassette effectively offer all the same benefits of Shimano’s brand new GRX gravel-specific components. The only thing missing is the modified lever/hood shape.

Giant provides its Contact SL Neutral saddle. Personally I find these saddles a little too narrow.

The Revolt Advanced 0 hides flashes of glossy silver amongst its matte black finish.

More silver details are seen on the inside of the downtube, too.

The downtube uses the full-width of the BB86 shell.

Giant call this the “PowerCore”. Marketing terms aside, there’s no detectable frame flex to complain of.

Threaded inserts in the carbon fork legs are designed for fenders, but could be used for other things, too.

A look at the handlebar’s backsweep.

There’s space in the rear for a 700x45c tyre, but only just (40c pictured).

The post Giant Revolt Advanced 0 2019 gravel bike review appeared first on CyclingTips.

I grew up obsessed with Transformers. Granted, my stereotypical Asian immigrant parents really only let me have toys with some sort of educational value (which basically translated into tons of Legos) so I never had very many of the things, but I adored the few that I did. I remember being amazed by the way they could so cleverly turn from one thing into another, and part of me thinks it’s a big reason I’m still fascinated by products that capably do double-duty.

Lazer’s original Bullet helmet was supposed to be one of those things. It promised the low drag of an aero lid (and a claimed 7W saving at 57km/h relative to the Z1), but with the ventilation of a more all-around model available on-demand courtesy of a sliding forward cover and an array of snap-on panels. There was also the option of adding Lazer’s neat Magneto magnetic eyewear system, a Bluetooth optional heart rate sensor, and/or the company’s electronic inclination sensor, which would give an audible alert if you got lazy and started dipping your head too much.

It was truly the Transformer of bike helmets. But alas, while I loved the idea of it, I found its execution left much to be desired. It was too hot, too clumsy to operate, too heavy.

Moving the Air Slide panel up and down opens or closes the vents that reside underneath.

Lazer now has a second-generation version available — aptly called the Bullet 2.0 — and this one seems to address most of my previous criticisms. The basic shape remains the same as before, but Lazer says the ventilation performance is much improved, and there are several accessories that are now included as standard equipment.

Headlining that list are solid snap-in panels that take the place of the ventilated ones, a Zeiss-certified eye shield (that attaches with magnets, of course), plus a tiny LED rear flasher that’s built directly into the adjustment dial on the retention system. The inclination sensor and heart rate monitor are still compatible, but remain optional add-ons.

There’s also a decent array of colors available, and Lazer even offers a version of the Bullet 2.0 with a MIPS low-friction liner in certain regions.

Lazer added some much-needed internal channeling to the Bullet 2.0, and this nifty Zeiss-certified visor is now included as well. I’ve never been tempted to use the visors included on other aero helmets I’ve used in the past, but this one is pretty decent. The helmet’s very low profile helps here, as the visor isn’t all that wide.

I received the standard Bullet 2.0 for review, and my small CPSC-certified sample tipped the scales at 342g with the standard Air Slide front panel and open rear vent. Retail price is US$270 / €260 for the non-MIPS version, or €280 for the MIPS-equipped one (sorry, that one isn’t offered in the United States).

Second time’s the charm

Let me get this out of the way first and foremost: this Bullet 2.0 is worlds better than the original version. I still see some remaining room for improvement, but it’s far more competitive than it was the first time around.

Ventilation is dramatically improved. The first-generation Bullet had a near-complete absence of internal channeling to help air flow through the interior, but the Bullet 2.0 has far fewer obstructions. There’s a clear path from the forward-most vents all the way to the rear exhausts, the sides are much more aggressively carved-out, the new “Venturi port” at the upper rear of the helmet actually reaches through to your scalp now, and there are prominent cutouts around the forehead area to help circulate cooling air there as well.

The Bullet 2.0 doesn’t have any more vents relative to the original Bullet, but it still feels worlds cooler now that the incoming air actually has a clear path through the interior and out the back.

In stark contrast to the veritable sweatbox that was the original Bullet, the Bullet 2.0 actually does a good job of keeping your head cool on hot days, at least when you’re moving at a decent speed. The overall lack of open area in the shell means the Bullet 2.0 will never feel as airy as a conventional non-aero helmet when you’re creeping up a steep climb, but that’s forgivable given the intended use here.

Perhaps best of all (at least for me), there’s no longer a steady stream of perspiration pouring down off the front of the helmet on to my face and glasses. There’s still a modest amount of dripping when things get really steamy, but it’s pretty reasonable now, and no worse than average.

Versatility is still among the Bullet 2.0’s strongest attributes. In standard form with the Air Slide front panel, I greatly appreciated the ability to open and close the main forward-facing vent at will. Here in Colorado, the weather conditions can change dramatically depending on the time of day or elevation, and rarely can you be ideally dressed to suit them all. But with the Air Slide, I had the option to “crack open the windows” while on the way up a big climb, and then seal things up for the fast descent back into town. Lingering winter weather provided good opportunity to use the solid panels, too.

Solid caps (at right) are included as well if you want maximum aero effect, or are riding in cold weather and want to restrict airflow. Otherwise, the Air Slide cover and “venturi” cap (at left) are the more useful options.

Granted, the Air Slide panel remains harder to operate than I think it should be — some sort of gripper dot or something similar would be immensely helpful, especially if you’re wearing full-fingered gloves — and there’s also no way to easily close up the side or rear vents. But even so, it’s nice to have this level of flexibility in a single helmet, particularly when all of the various pieces are included in the purchase price.

And you know what? This may be the first eye shield that I didn’t hate. I noticed a bit of distortion relative to top-end conventional sunglasses (particularly from Oakley and Smith Optics), but the coverage is fantastic, the not-too-dark neutral grey tint works for a decent range of conditions, and I didn’t find it to look all that goofy, either.

The magnetic attachment system up front is fairly easy to use, too, and Lazer thankfully incorporated a second dock at the rear of the helmet so you have somewhere to put the shield if you need to pull it off mid-ride. The small target back there can be tricky to find while in the saddle, but I appreciate that it’s there nonetheless, and the process admittedly gets easier with practice.

When you don’t feel like wearing the shield, there’s another magnet at the rear of the helmet that provides handy storage.

For those of you that would prefer to instead use standard sunglasses, rest assured that the newly carved-out side vents now leave enough room to stash conventional eyewear. Lazer’s bulky retention system still tends to interfere with sunglass models that have particularly long temples, though. Raising the height-adjustable cradle helps, but at the expense of fit security.

I continue to be a fan of the Bullet 2.0’s low-profile shape, and the lower edge is now covered with a plastic shell, which bodes well for long-term durability (the original Bullet was exposed foam there). However, that only adds to the amount of plastic that is already there, and that takes a toll on the scales. That extra weight isn’t so noticeable on your head, but it’s hard to ignore when you pick this thing up next to other high-end options (the Giro Vanquish MIPS, for example, is a significant 70g lighter).

Safety-minded riders should also note that the rear of the Bullet 2.0 is still very high-cut, and leaves a fair bit of your head exposed.

As is typical for many aero road helmets, the Lazer Bullet 2.0 has a tapered shape and a somewhat elongated tail. It’s also cut quite high in the rear, and leaves a lot of your head exposed.

One thing that I didn’t expect (and don’t recall from the original Bullet) is significant wind noise. I’ve come to find that a nice benefit of aero road helmets is that they’re quieter at high speeds. However, for whatever reason, this Bullet 2.0 was strangely loud. Whether that is a reflection of the helmet’s aerodynamic performance, I can’t say (and I should point out that I didn’t conduct proper aero testing, either). But it’s something I noticed all the same, and not necessarily in a good way.

And finally, I appreciate that Lazer has included a rear LED into the retention system, but it’s far too dim to be remotely usable in daytime conditions. It’s better than nothing if you’re caught out after dark, but it’ll very much provide a false sense of security if you’re trying to enhance your midday (or dawn, or dusk) visibility.

From forgettable to a contender

Overall, Lazer has made a lot of major improvements here, to the point where I’d now consider the Bullet 2.0 to be a viable competitor in the category. It may not be light, but there will undoubtedly be a lot of people who will find appeal in its versatility, and Lazer has done a good job of maximizing that utility by including everything in the box.

My recommendation would be to go with the MIPS version instead of the standard one I tested here, though (assuming it’s available where you live). The jury may still be out on the effectiveness of MIPS in some circles, but independent testing by the folks at Virginia Tech University strongly suggests that helmets with some sort of rotational elements do a better job of protecting your brain than helmets that don’t have them, and that’s good enough for me.

www.lazersport.com

The original Lazer Bullet honestly wasn’t very good, but this remake is a big improvement.

Aero helmets sometimes look pretty goofy, but I think the Bullet 2.0 is actually quite attractive.

New cutouts around the forehead area help the Bullet 2.0 do a much better job of keeping this area relatively dry as compared to the original Bullet, which sometimes felt akin to pouring water down the front of your face.

This new “venturi” port is designed to help suck hot air out from underneath the rear of the helmet. Regardless of whether it works the way Lazer describes, the Bullet 2.0 sure feels a lot airier than before.

Underneath the Air Slide cover is a plastic frame and a few vents. All that plastic adds up on the scale, unfortunately.

Foam has been carved away inside the sides of the helmet as well.

On the back of the Bullet 2.0 is a port for Lazer’s inclination sensor, which will alert you if your head strays too far from a designated position.

The eye shield attaches with a couple of magnets that are embedded into the helmet liner.

One nice benefit of the inside of the side vents being more carved out than before is that it’s now much easier to store conventional eyewear.

A red LED is integrated directly into the retention system’s adjustment dial. It’s far too dim to be useful in daytime hours, though, and is only marginally visible at nighttime, too.

The strap sliders don’t lock in place, and tend to move around a bit more than I’d prefer.

I’d like to see Lazer’s ATS retention system reshaped so as not to interfere with conventional eyewear as much as it does.

The post Lazer Bullet 2.0 aero helmet review: Potential realized appeared first on CyclingTips.

A battle of the Big S’. While these two mega-companies typically work closely together, they’re direct competitors when it comes to footwear. And with both companies recently launching new premium performance off-road shoes pitched at cross country, cyclocross and gravel racers, it was time to pit the two against one another.

Both Shimano’s S-Phyre XC901 and Specialized’s S-Works Recon look fairly similar on paper, but as James Huang and myself have concluded independently of one another, there’s a whole lot to separate them.

The Shoes

Both the Shimano S-Phyre XC901 and S-Works Recon are the latest performance off-road shoes from their respective companies. Look to the professional riders using either brand in gravel, cyclocross or cross country disciplines, and you’ll find these shoes in use. For example, Mathieu van der Poel races in the S-Phyre XC901 for both CX and XC, whereas Annika Langvad and Jaroslav Kulhavy will be found wearing the S-Works Recon in upcoming (and past!) XC World Cups.

Both shoes are effectively modified and more rugged versions of their respective road counterparts, the Shimano S-Phyre RC9 and Specialized S-Works 7. The soles suit SPD-style two-bolt cleats, and tread surrounds for pedal support and traction off the bike.

Both shoes feature carbon soles with the highest grade of stiffness offered in each company’s off-road range. Both feature dual-Boa closures, too – although the S-Works adds a Velcro strap at the toe box. And both shoes come with a hefty price tag — US$425/AU$500 for the S-Phyre XC9 and US$400/AU$449 for the S-Works Recon.

And that’s about all these two have in common.

Both may feature Boas, but they’re different. Shimano equips the widely used IP1, a plastic system that offers dual-direction micro adjustment and a fast release by pulling up on the dial.

Specialized has exclusive use of a new, aluminium system – it’ll certainly take a heavier hit than plastic, but it also lacks a quick release function. Instead, Specialized makes it easy to release the wire loop, for faster entry and exit from the shoe. Still, the Shimanos are faster to get in and out of.

Weight-wise, the S-Phyre XC901 shoes sit at 690g (inner soles alone are 34g), while the S-Works Recon are a more impressive 610g (inner soles: 24g).

The Fit

Traditionally speaking, Shimano and Specialized shoes fit similarly and work with a wide range of foot shapes. Both James and I tested the regular widths of each model, however, there are wide versions offered in each.

The Shimano is wider, roomier, softer and should suit a greater variety of foot shapes. Meanwhile, the Specialized is still designed to fit the masses, but the fit is far less forgiving.

The Shimanos are certainly more forgiving in fit though. With a wider fit across the foot, the Shimanos simply provide more wiggle room. Toe box width is a little wider, the toes taper a little less, and the heel cup is more relaxed.

By contrast, the Recon aims to lock your foot into the shoe. A deep, surrounding heel cup holds the back of the foot extremely snug. Thankfully it’s not quite as extreme as the old S-Works 6 — those gave me blisters due to their aggressive heel hold.

The Specialized’s toe box is shallower, and the Velcro strap can be used to make it narrower, too. And then the tongue design works to pull the foot down and firmly against the angular innersole.

Both James and I experienced some pinching from the Specialized’s tongue design, only noticeable when dropping your heels or when walking. No such issues were experienced with the Shimanos.

Shimano (left) provides innersoles with interchangeable arch support. Specialized offers no such flexiblity — changes to arch support require new innersoles. James likes lots of arch support, and found benefit in trading the Shimano innersoles for Specialized’s new heat-moldable model.

The two companies take different strategies for their innersoles. Shimano provides a footbed with a Velcro-based, interchangeable wedge support. Three wedge heights are provided. Specialized uses lighter inserts, with more aggressively supportive versions available aftermarket at a fair price. Much like the rest of the fit, the Specialized is somewhat more polarising, but certainly more supportive if it fits.

SPD shoes typically offer more fore-aft cleat adjustment than road systems, and the S-Phyres are not lacking in this department. However, the S-Works take it to another level — you’re certainly unlikely to ever need the extremes of the available adjustment range.

The Pedalling

Both of these shoes are unquestionably stiff and efficient when spinning circles, but the Specializeds offer something else.

Simply, I’ve never had a mountain bike pedal system feel more like a road system than when using the S-Works’. It’s a seriously awesome feeling when stamping on the pedals.

The S-Works Recon delivers a foot hold and level of stability on the pedal that mimics a great road system. It’s impressive.

Part of that is the S-Works’ more rigid hold of the foot. You’re really locked into that heel cup, and the whole shoe prevents the foot from collapsing under load. It’s such a tight fit in fact, that you almost need to slide your foot forward when taking the shoe off.

Another aspect is Specialized patented Body Geometry sole, which puts the whole sole on a cant in relation to the pedal. While it’s not for everyone, James and I find it provides a more efficient feel to the downstroke in seated pedalling. By contrast, Shimano — and just about everyone else — keeps things flatter, and aims to achieve a similar slope through raising your arches.

While road pedal systems use a large cleat to provide off-plane stability, mountain bike systems often use the shoe tread that surrounds the cleat. Somewhat unexpectedly, the Specializeds are better here too.

Funnily enough, Shimano’s shoes tend to suffer a minute amount of off-plane rocking when used with the company’s own SPD pedals. By contrast, the Specialized S-Works Recon is millimetre-perfect without causing interference issues.

Partly due to Specialized’s use of a harder tread, and likely also related to the tread height, the S-Works interact with pedals systems far more snuggly. In fact, there’s no discernible off-plane wiggle when used with Shimano SPD pedals. Ironically, you do feel a little of that movement when combining Shimano SPD pedals and the XC901s.

The previously mentioned pinching on the S-Works only happens when you exaggerate dropping the heel. Here a slightly uncomfortable pinch is felt above the tongue, but after a few rides, I was all but forgetting the issue.

The Shimanos still feel like a premium performance shoe in every sense, but do so with a little more freedom in foot movement. The heel is also similarly more relaxed but still resists heel slip well.

The Walking (or running)

Walking and running in the Specializeds isn’t as nice as in the Shimanos. Shimano’s Michelin-branded rubber tread offers better traction on both hard and sick surfaces. Such is the difference, that the S-Works can even feel slick walking on clean tiles, while the Shimano’s tackier nature provides a confident step.

Shimano’s use of Michelin tread is simply better when off the bike.

Similarly, the more forgiving fit and lack of tongue-pinching from the Shimanos makes them more comfortable for extended hike-a-bike sections, steep run-ups and especially when climbing down things.

On the flip side, neither shoes offers replaceable tread, and the harder and blockier construction of the S-Works will be more durable. Still, I put my previous XC9 shoes through hell, and while other parts of the shoe didn’t fare so well, the tread remains intact.

Both shoes are compatible with toe spikes, however, out of the box, they’re fitted with plastic nubs. This will be a worthy upgrade with either shoe if you’re racing cross.

The Favourite

For my flat feet and fussy, bony ankles, the Shimanos were simply more comfortable. And with most things you wear, comfort should take precedence over all else.

Both of these shoes proved great for their intended purposes and depending on what feel and fit you desire, you can’t go wrong with either.

If you’re after a road pedal-like feel out of a mountain bike pedal system, I’d argue there’s no finer choice than the S-Works Recon. For example, if I were racing gravel with rare off-the-bike sections, I’d choose the crazily-efficient-feeling S-Works.

Most of James’ Boulder-based gravel riding meets that description, and so his preference is for the Recon. “They feel more like a road shoe, but with just enough tread for me to amble about if needed, and SPD compatibility so I don’t have to worry about mud.”

My rides often involve exploring gravel roads and technical cross-country jaunts, so the Shimanos’ comfort and unquestionably better off-bike-traction win out. I’ll take the Shimanos, thanks.

Gallery

Looking for a premium SPD shoe? It’s hard to go wrong with either of these, but there are certainly key differences to be aware of.

The Specializeds are a touch more expensive, and that’s somewhat justified when you feel the difference in materials used.

Both shoes offer toe protection against rock strikes.

Neither shoe offers a truly amazing innersole. They’re both perfectly functional, but there’s benefit to an upgrade.

Both shoes offer clever heel retention. The Specialized heel cup is more rigid, deeper and with a rubber-like texture. The Shimano offers a one-way velcro-like material that stops your sock from pulling up.

The Shimano S-Phyre XC9s are comfortable and offer a good amount of traction when the wheels stop turning.

Shimano’s use of Boa IP1 dials allows for both easy release and micro adjustment.

The Michelin tread on the Shimanos is certainly softer than what the S-Works Recon offers, but so far, durability has been of no concern.

The Specialized S-Works Recon. It’s best described as a road shoe, for off-road use.

The alloy Boa dials used by Specialized lack a quick release function. Instead, you’ll need to release the loops for easy access into the shoe. It’s slower and fiddlier than what the Shimanos offer.

Said to be the world’s strongest fibre, Dyneema is used for much of the Specialized S-Works Recon’s upper construction.

The hard tread blocks on the S-Works Recon can feel a little slick at times.

The Specialized S-Works Recon offers an enormous amount cleat fore-aft adjustment.

The post Shimano S-Phyre XC9 vs Specialized S-Works Recon off-road shoe review appeared first on CyclingTips.

I spend a lot of time traveling with a bike, and I’ve grown pretty adept at paring down my assortment of tools, spares, and accessories to the bare essentials. After all, many airlines charge a small fortune if your travel case is even a smidgeon overweight, and a failure to keep your grams in check here can cost you a lot of money.

But function is still important, and although I’ve gotten used to the idea of living with a mini-pump when I’m on the road, I sometimes miss the convenience of a proper floor pump when I’m getting everything together in my hotel room.

Silca has rapidly earned a reputation for well thought-out floor, frame, and mini-pumps — not to mention tools, bags, and other doodads — and the company recently debuted a dedicated travel model to the lineup called Viaggio. Having spent a lot of time with the Specialized Air Tool ComPak (a little heavy, poor gauge, so-so stability) and the Lezyne CNC Travel Drive (very good stability, a real gauge, but a little bulky) in the past, surely the Viaggio might have something more to offer?

Despite being billed as a “travel pump”, the Viaggio isn’t far off from a conventional floor pump in terms of height, and the hose is actually longer than what many brands offer for their standard home models.

The Silca of travel pumps

Not surprisingly given Silca’s other pumps, the Viaggio comes across as somewhat overbuilt and perhaps a little overly engineered for the task at hand.

The body is made of extruded 6061 aluminum, and the removable handle is not only machined from aluminum, but its shape mimics that of Silca’s SuperPista Ultimate model. Down below are two fold-down stainless steel feet. When fully assembled, the Viaggio stands nearly 60cm-tall — not far off from a “proper” floor pump.

Inside the Viaggio are two Silca trademark features: the leather u-cup main plunger is claimed to pump more efficiently, last longer, and be easier to service than conventional o-ring setups; and within the base is the same brass check valve that Silca has been using long before former Zipp technical director Josh Poertner acquired the company in 2013.

The leather U-cup plunger head needs to be re-greased periodically, but based on previous experience with other Silca pumps (it’s the same bit that’s been used for decades), it should last nearly forever. Further helping matters is the composite guide bushing behind it.

Silca also equips the Viaggio with the same Hiro stainless steel chuck that’s used on its premium floor pumps. It holds valves tightly, and like the rest of the pump, is easy to service with available small parts when necessary. That head secures to the Viaggio body with a nifty magnetic dock, and although the Hiro only works with Presta valves, it can be removed to reveal a Schrader attachment underneath. In either case, the 99cm-long hose is comparable to most floor pumps — longer than some, in fact — which can be handy in tight quarters.

One thing that’s conspicuously absent is a physical pressure gauge. Instead, Silca uses the same wireless pressure sensor that’s found in the Tattico mini-pump, which sends the measured pressure via Bluetooth to a smartphone running the free iGauge app. No doubt, such an arrangement comes across as needlessly complicated. However, Silca also claims the Viaggio’s +/-0.5psi claimed accuracy is far better than the compromised physical gauges you usually find in this category.

You can also store several bike profiles in the app, each with preset pressure targets and alerts when you’ve hit those targets. Silca claims a 100-hour battery life (actual use time, not standby time), and the gauge shuts off completely when the pump isn’t being used. When the battery does eventually run out of juice, the CR2032 coin cell should be pretty easy to source.

Inside the base is the Bluetooth pressure gauge, which uses the iGauge smartphone app instead of a built-in display.

One other aspect that is decidedly Silca-esque is the price of the Viaggio. At US$275 / AU$440 / £275 / €245, it’s unquestionably a luxury item for cyclists that only insist on the best for their S&S-equipped custom Mosaic or Baum. But hey, it also comes with a waxed canvas storage case that doubles as a tool roll, along with the bragging rights that come with the fact that you spent more on your travel pump than most cyclists spend on their everyday pump at home.

Surprise, surprise — it works well

Make fun of the Viaggio all you want. The fact of the matter is that it does actually work quite well, and Silca has done a good job of balancing effort vs. air volume here. The relatively small-diameter barrel doesn’t push enough air to make the Viaggio a great option for impatient traveling mountain bikers (especially if they’re running new-school higher-volume 29er or 27+ tire setups), nor is it well-suited for seating stubborn tubeless setups. But for most road, gravel, and ‘cross bikes, it feels just about right to me.

I counted a reasonable 34 strokes to inflate a 700x25c (26mm actual width) tire to 80psi, compared to 44 for the Specialized Air Tool ComPak, or 26 for Silca’s latest Super Pista Digital floor pump.

The flip-out stainless steel feet certainly don’t offer the stability of a proper one-piece base, but they do the job, and at least there are two feet instead of just one. And despite the fact that it’s a travel pump, the Viaggio still incorporates Silca’s now-trademark magnetic dock for the head.

The 60cm assembled height is a touch shorter than what you’ll find on most at-home pumps, but it’s still an improvement over the Lezyne and Specialized (both of which are about 10cm shorter still). That meaty aluminum handle also feels very substantial in your hands and provides a reassuringly sturdy grip. The flip-out steel feet aren’t particularly stable, though, and I couldn’t help but wonder if Silca could have done some sort of similar slide-on aluminum base instead. I mean, the dovetail runs the full length of the extruded aluminum body, so why now, right?

That said, I was very pleasantly surprised with the Bluetooth-enabled wireless pressure sensor. I was initially expecting this aspect of the Viaggio to be more trouble than it was worth, but as compared to the skimpy physical gauges that are normally found on travel pumps, the display on the iGauge app is much easier to read with big, bright digits that are legible even if you just leave your phone on the floor. The preset audible pressure target alarms and stored profiles are quite nice, too, and the whole system is very straightforward to use and pleasantly responsive.

Moving the pressure readout from a traditional on-pump display to a digital one that requires a companion app on your smartphone seems at first to be needlessly complex. But the digital display is easier to read than a physical gauge (especially ones you normally find on travel pumps), and Silca’s Bluetooth pressure sensor has been proven to be extremely accurate.

Compared to the handful of standalone digital gauges I had on hand, the Viaggio’s onboard digital gauge seemed dead-on, too. In fact, CyclingTips Australian tech editor Dave Rome recently verified the fantastic accuracy of Silca’s Tattico Bluetooth as part of an upcoming mini-pump test, and given that the Viaggio uses the same sensor, that accuracy should carry over here as well. So while this whole thing still comes across as a little gimmicky, I also can’t deny that it works, either.

But maybe it’s too good in some ways

As good as it is, I’m not entirely sure how I feel about how thoroughly the Viaggio is designed and built. Generally speaking, I’m always in favor of products that are designed with longevity and serviceability in mind, and to that end, Silca has done a good job. The Viaggio is mostly made of metal, it’s straightforward to take apart, and there’s generally an air of quality around the whole thing.

The slide-on machined aluminum handle is meant to mimic the shape of Silca’s SuperPista Ultimate floor pump.

But then again, we’re also talking about a travel pump that isn’t likely to see a huge amount of heavy-duty use, so I’m not sure how many people will ever put that longevity to the test. That said, if something on the Viaggio does fail, it’s likely to be the plastic base that houses the Bluetooth pressure sensor and anchors the fold-out feet. As compared to the rest of the pump, this feels like a distinct weak point, and is a little disappointing to see given the price point.

Perhaps more important in this case, however, is how all of that affects the Viaggio’s size and weight. Sure, it feels substantial when you’re using it, but it’s also pretty big and heavy. The Viaggio is still 58cm-long when broken down, and it’s also a weighty 1.01kg (without the travel case). Considering the importance of minimizing weight when it comes to airline regulations, this seems like a miss to me. As I said at the beginning of this review, when you’re talking about weight limits and big fees, a few grams can cost big bucks.

No question, the Viaggio is an impressively nice piece of kit, and the fact that the competition here is comparatively mediocre makes the Viaggio stand out even more. But I’m also coming from the standpoint of someone who trims down the seatpost on his travel bike to save every bit of size and weight, and given that I already have to travel with a hand pump as it is (since CO2 cartridges can’t be transported by air), I’m not sure how necessary a dedicated travel pump is to begin with.

The Viaggio packs down into a shape that’s fairly easy to stuff into a travel case, but it still isn’t all that small, nor is it all that light.

Personally, I wish Silca had been more obsessive about weight and size when designing the Viaggio, given that those are obviously higher priorities relative to a floor pump when it comes to travel. If your plan is to keep the Viaggio in your vehicle, than neither of those things is a big deal. But if you’re considering a Viaggio for airline travel, I’m not as convinced.

If you absolutely have to have the best, this is it, minor flaws and all. But at least for my needs, I’m more than comfortable just bringing Silca’s Tattico Bluetooth mini-pump instead (or a good mini-pump and a separate digital gauge). Sure, it takes longer to inflate tires with that thing, but it does the job, and uses the same Bluetooth pressure sensor and handy iGauge app. As a result, it offers the same level of accuracy, but it takes up a lot less room, and doesn’t add any redundant weight.

And for me, that’s more than good enough.

www.silca.cc

The Hiro head is satisfying stout, with full-metal construction that should last for ages.

The valve grommet is replaceable, of course, and although the Hiro head only works with Presta valves, the Viaggio also works with Schrader valves if you unscrew the Hiro from the hose.

The bead-blasted logo is a nice touch.

The included carrying case is a handy add-on, as it also incorporates pockets for any tools you might need for bike assembly and disassembly.

The extruded aluminum body includes a dovetail channel to store the handle.

To get the Viaggio ready to travel, you just slide the handle off the top of the shaft…

…and then slide it on to the body.

Spring-loaded balls help lock the handle in place both on top of the shaft or on the side of the body.

The post Silca Viaggio travel pump review: Works well, but too big and too heavy appeared first on CyclingTips.

The bike industry is full of products that claim to make you faster. Some focus on reducing your aero drag, others trim weight, and some attempt to efficiently transfer the watts from your legs to the road. Many can indeed make you faster, while others perhaps exist because there is profit to be had.

Drivetrain efficiency is an interesting and often overlooked opportunity for going faster. A new Shimano Ultegra groupset is said to cost approximately 20W when pedalled at 250W (90rpm)* — in other words, your rear tyre receives 92% of what you put into the pedals. And scarily, that number only gets worse as your power output increases.

Fast chain lube and a clean chain can make a measurable difference here, while other upgrades, such as different bearing seals and lubricant can have a more marginal impact, too. 100% efficiency is impossible, but narrowing the gap is not.

Retailing from US$500/AU$650 for what’s effectively a carbon fibre derailleur cage and ceramic bearing-equipped aluminium pulley wheels, CeramicSpeed’s OSPW (OverSized Pulley Wheel) system is immediately one of the most polarising speed pursuit upgrades. Many assume it’s the well-marketed ceramic pulley wheel bearings (fitted with light contact seals and fast lubricant) that provide the claimed 2-4W savings, and while they play a role, the real benefits are in the oversized pulley wheels.

The data suggest the OSPW will indeed save you watts, although that speed is anything but free. But does it also impact shifting and drivetrain reliability? Is it noisier? And if it’s so good, why don’t we see more pros racing with it?

The data

CeramicSpeed claims the OSPW can save you between 2-4W over a stock Shimano Dura-Ace derailleur cage system (at 250W, 90rpm), and that figure progressively improves the worse your chain maintenance and selection of chain lubricant is (or as it wears off and gets contaminated toward the end of a race). In reality, with an optimised or even well-maintained chain in use, that figure is likely closer to just 1-2W – but still, watts are watts.

Larger cogs are more efficient because of reduced chain articulation. As compared to the SRAM Red22 short cage on the left, each chain link articulates far less when it’s running through the CeramicSpeed OSPW.

Just as we know using larger cogs and chainrings are more efficient as a result of reduced chain link articulation, the same applies to derailleur pulley wheels. With regular 11-tooth pulley wheels, each link of a chain must articulate about 33 degrees as it enters and exits each pulley wheel. But with a 19-tooth pulley wheel (the largest available in any OSPW), each chain link only needs to articulate 19 degrees.

While it’s the most commonly seen, the most expensive, and often considered the best, the CeramicSpeed OSPW is hardly the only oversized pulley wheel system. German company Berner was the first to offer an aftermarket derailleur cage upgrade focussed on increasing the pulley wheel tooth count. Other brands, including CeramicSpeed and a number of lower-cost imitations, have since followed.

Formerly the world’s independent voice for all matters of drivetrain efficiency, Jason Smith is now CeramicSpeed’s technical officer. Still, much of his earlier test findings from his Friction Facts days remain. Back in 2013, FrictionFacts measured a 0.49W efficiency difference between a 10T-10T pulley combination and a 15T-15T pulley combination, with all other variables held constant. Reducing derailleur cage tension then offers similar benefits, and CeramicSpeed’s OSPW makes it easy to select between three spring tensions.

The CeramicSpeed OSPW makes one seriously nice fidget spinner. pic.twitter.com/Z4F9D8IN1V

— Dave Rome (@Dave_Rome) May 17, 2019

In addition, a larger pulley wheel spins slower for a given cadence, and in this case, each pulley also runs on premium hybrid ceramic bearings with light-contact seals and a low-friction oil. It’s easy to see how this product can improve drivetrain efficiency.

For CeramicSpeed, each OSPW is unique to the derailleur model it’s designed to be fitted to, and there’s a great variety in the exact pulley wheel tooth counts used. For example, the SRAM mechanical OSPW kit I tested here features dual 17T pulley wheels, whereas the original setup used 11T ones. Some other cages, such as for Campagnolo or certain Shimano models, feature a smaller 13T top pulley combined with a larger 19T pulley.

The exact configuration depends on derailleur geometry and just how much CeramicSpeed believes the limits can be pushed before shift performance suffers.

The CeramicSpeed OSPW for Shimano R9100/R8000-series derailleurs features a 13T upper pulley, and an enormous 19T lower.

So exactly how many watts will an OSPW save you? Tooth counts aside, not all stock derailleur pulleys are created equal — different derailleurs run different tensions, and even tooth profile matters, too. There are simply too many variables at play to give an exact figure, but the data safely point toward it being at least a watt.

Installation and setup

The process for installing an OSPW varies based on the derailleur model, and each kit includes clear instructions. Following these instructions makes it a medium-difficulty install, with elements such as fitting a slightly longer chain and ensuring the derailleur hanger is 100% straight adding to the complexity.

Installing the OSPW involves removing the stock cage assembly. By using a removable tension stop, CeramicSpeed has made it an easier process than installing the stock cage.

With a longer cage and bigger wheels, an OSPW-equipped derailleur is certainly more sensitive to adjustment and alignment. But once set up, the shifting is surprisingly good, and in the case of my Red22 drivetrain, remained suitably crisp.

I was surprised to feel play between the cage and the derailleur’s B-knuckle. This is relatively common according to other mechanics, but the consensus is that it doesn’t seem to impact shifting or performance. It’s commonly agreed that the play is worse with the simple pin retention on SRAM derailleurs, and the latest OSPW models for Shimano are far more solid – something I can attest to having recently received a test bike fitted with a Shimano R9100/R8000 version of the OSPW.

The OSPW offers three tension settings. Once installed, you’ll need to remove the cage in order to change it.

The higher the spring tension, the snappier the shifting, and the better the chain retention. CeramicSpeed recommends running the lowest of three spring settings you can to get the most efficiency, but general road riding/racing will likely benefit from a higher tension. I ended up settling on the highest (and highest-friction) spring tension, simply because the chain slap was otherwise too great on my poorly surfaced local roads. The high setting is roughly equal to what the stock cage was set on.

Weight-wise, the OSPW sample for SRAM mechanical added 22g to my derailleur: the original Red22 short cage is 49g, and the CeramicSpeed OSPW is 71g. Interestingly, the OSPW I fitted effectively turned my derailleur into a long cage version, and CeramicSpeed suggests that up to a 32T can be fitted, much like SRAM’s own medium cage Red22 rear derailleur which is also 20g heavier than the regular short cage version (28T capacity).

The Dura-Ace R9150 Di2 derailleur fitted with its OSPW weighed 230g, approximately 30g heavier than a stock derailleur, but like the SRAM version, the fitting of the OSPW grows the lowest gear allowance to 32T (30T stock).

Shifting gears

Out on the road, I quickly forgot that my bike was carrying an extra $500 on one of its more easily damaged components. And despite the play from where the cage connects and the increased flex from the extended cage, my shifting remained reliable and crisp. The same can be said for the Dura-Ace R9150 Di2 version I’ve recently begun using, with the robotic shifting kept quick and precise.

I may have forgotten it was installed, but others looking closely at my bike certainly hadn’t. There is no missing this modification, and the aesthetics are questionable at best.

There’s certainly no hiding this upgrade.

The large aluminium pulley wheels are noisier than small plastic pulleys, but not so noisy to be a nuisance over the whirr of your tyres or the hum of nearby traffic. The only time I noticed the additional noise was on the indoor trainer.

I’d be lying if I said I could feel the difference the OSPW provided. To be fair, my Red22 derailleur was already fitted with SRAM’s ceramic bearing pulley wheels, and they were worn in and well-kept. My bottom bracket was already set up with high-end bearings and obsessively preloaded for minimal resistance. Likewise, my chain is treated with Molten Speed Wax – one of the fastest options.

As a result my bike is one where an OSPW may only save a watt, if not less. Still, there’s something extremely satisfying about the smoothness provided through a sum of efficient parts – and the OSPW was certainly a contributor toward that.

The OSPW is pricey, but with the right maintenance, it could outlast the derailleur it’s fitted to. The metal pulley wheels should wear more slowly than resin versions, more because their larger size spreads the load further, rather than because of the materials used. And CeramicSpeed’s ceramic bearings are famously durable, too.

“In general, with the [regular] CeramicSpeed bearings, you can bring them back to life as the races and bearings don’t get surface rust on them,” said Zach Edwards of the Boulder Gruppetto workshop, in Boulder, Colorado. “I travel with a guy during the cyclocross season, and last year we had CeramicSpeed bottom bracket and hub bearings, and they lasted a whole season of back-to-back-to-back muddy weekends with lots of power washing. You can just clean and flush out the bearings and re-grease to keep them going even after they have seized.”

In case you were still concerned about the durability – and if the OSPW wasn’t expensive enough – then for an additional $100, CeramicSpeed has a Coated version, which features a harder and more corrosion-resistant coating on the bearing races, and is backed by a six-year guarantee from CeramicSpeed.

A small bottle of CeramicSpeed oil is provided with the system. It’s simply applied through the ports on the backside of the cage. How often? Well, that depends on the conditions you ride in.

Out of the box, the OSPW bearings run on light oil, and CeramicSpeed provides a small bottle of lubricant to keep the bearings running smooth. The cage has small lube ports built-in, although removing the pulleys to access the bearings and seals is better. For extended durability or more care-free use in poor conditions, Edwards recommends doing a half fill with CeramicSpeed grease instead of the supplied oil.

Why don’t more pros use it?

One argument I’ve seen is that the watts an OSPW would save over an already optimised drivetrain are negated by increased aero drag, and not surprisingly, that argument is disputed by CeramicSpeed. But nevertheless, it’s a question I posed to Silca’s Josh Poertner, a former technical director at Zipp and current technical consultant to a number of top WorldTour teams. Poertner said that although he hasn’t specifically tested the OSPW in a wind tunnel, it’s also never come up as a concern, and that whatever drag it may create, it’s likely within the tolerance of the tunnel anyhow.

Poertner agrees that CeramicSpeed’s claims for an OSPW saving 2-4W are overstated and that the figure is indeed closer to 1-2W. However, in the pursuit of marginal gains, Poertner did say it’s a product he’s recommended to teams, at least for use in time trials.

Due to its obvious presence, pro teams with drivetrain sponsorship agreements aren’t allowed to ride a product like the OSPW.

Speaking off-record, a mechanic from one of the top WorldTour teams said they had also tested the CeramicSpeed OSPW and found it offered real benefits. I was told the team would choose to use the system if it didn’t directly conflict with a far more valuable drivetrain sponsorship agreement.

And right there is likely the reason for why we don’t see more drivetrain modifications in professional cycling: sponsorship conflict. Step into other disciplines where lucrative drivetrain contracts are rarer, such as Ironman, and OSPWs and similar modifications are a common sight.

Jason Smith, CeramicSpeed’s technical officer, suggested that a few of the top teams are likely using hidden drivetrain drag tricks, at least for important races and stages. And while he suggests that an OSPW is the second best upgrade you can do to reduce drivetrain drag (after chain preparation), it’s also one of the few mods that’s impossible to hide.

If the data is there, then why do all three major components manufacturers stick to small pulleys?

All of this begs the question: why do the likes of Shimano, SRAM, and Campagnolo stick with small pulley wheels when the data suggest they’re not the best way?

“It’s hard to say with certainty,” said Smith. “It could be a corporate belief/philosophy that drivetrain efficiency is not a priority. It could be because drivetrain efficiency is not considered by the ‘Big Three’ as a mass-market requirement yet. Or perhaps, it’s simply because the Big Three, while industry leaders in general, are not industry leaders when it comes to the finer aspects of efficiency.

“Arguably, if efficiency was a priority, they’d be manufacturing oversized pulley wheel systems. We can say with certainty and based on data, that it’s not because smaller pulley wheels are more efficient.

“We must also not rule out the depth [to] which standard-sized pulley wheels hold cross-compatibility for many derailleur models. Manufacturing equipment, design, and compatibility should be considered, too.”

I reached out to Shimano’s R&D department for insight into the matter and simply got a “no comment”.

Conclusion

Given that you can find an entire Dura-Ace Di2 rear derailleur (or an entire Shimano Tiagra groupset!) for the cost of this pulley cage assembly, one does have to question its value for money. I’m not going to beat around the bush: this product is overpriced for what you get.

Yes, CeramicSpeed has indisputably invested more into research and competitive testing than any other company in the space. Yes, quality and tolerances are great. Yes, the OSPW features top-class ceramic bearings and a quality fibre-reinforced composite cage. But you can’t ignore that price.

The price becomes a little more palatable when comparing the benefits it offers over more common (and also expensive) ceramic bearing pulley wheel upgrades, but even the price of those is something most will (and should) choke on. The decision becomes tougher again when you consider the option for larger pulley wheels that fit stock derailleur cages. For example, Kogel now offers 12/14T pulleys to fit directly into the latest 11-speed Shimano road rear derailleurs, and the company even has 14/14T pulleys to fit into 12-speed mountain bike derailleurs. Such an upgrade will cost you US$150, or less than a third of an OSPW.

Still, if you’re in the pursuit of marginal gains and spending $500 to save a couple of watts seems like the next step, then the OSPW is exactly for you. It should provide better efficiency gains than a bottom bracket or hub bearing upgrade, and those benefits only amplify the harder you pedal and the dirtier your chain becomes.

A bike fit, coaching, faster tyres (and/or latex tubes), aero wheels, an aero helmet, and even an optimised chain will all provide a vastly superior return on watts-saved-per-dollar when compared to a product like the OSPW. But after you’ve done all that, and you’re at a point where you can obsess over the one-percenters, then go for it. An OSPW will certainly make more of a difference than the titanium bolt kit and carbon bidon cages you’re eyeing, and the benefits will transfer to your Zwift efforts, too.

Gallery

You’ll find very few items in cycling that cost this much and still look this simple.

Before…

…and after.

Another view of the CeramicSpeed OSPW for newer Shimano 11-speed road rear derailleurs. Here it’s fitted to a R9150 Di2 rear derailleur, and shifting is kept buttery smooth.

CeramicSpeed is best known for its fast bearings, which are of course included within.

Derailleur hanger alignment is critical with the OSPW.

Small ports are provided near the center of the pulleys for easy bearing/seal lubing.

Pictured is a version specific to SRAM Mechanical. The way it attaches, the geometry, and even the tooth count vary depending on the derailleur brand and model it’s designed for.

I’m not denying the actual benefits CeramicSpeed’s OSPW can offer, but those small gains certainly come at a significant price.

The post CeramicSpeed OSPW pulley wheel system review: Oversized, overpriced appeared first on CyclingTips.

I spent my formative years of mountain biking riding hardtails. Although my very first one was made of carbon fiber (?!), it wasn’t long at all before I found myself firmly enamored with metal. There was a titanium Litespeed Obed, three DeKerfs (a steel Team SL, a steel-and-titanium Team ST, and then a titanium Elysium), a custom Reynolds 853 Waterford, and a feathery-light Voodoo Bizango that met an untimely demise on its maiden voyage after receiving a gloriously elaborate custom paint job from a friend.

I have fond memories of every one of those bikes, and so it was with no small amount of hope and nostalgia that I embarked upon this test of the Ritchey Ultra: a steel hardtail with old-school tube diameters, but a more modern geometry and big, plus-sized 27.5in tires to help take the sting out of Colorado rocks. Would it bring me back to days gone by?

Sort of.

Old meets new

At first glance, the Ultra is about as classic as you can get from a mass-produced steel frame these days. The butted Ritchey Logic steel tubes are barely oversized and TIG-welded into a traditional double-diamond configuration, there’s a threaded bottom bracket down below, and most of the cables are routed externally. But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll see that this is no throwback rig.

Nods to modernity include the gracefully tapered and integrated head tube, Boost 148x12mm rear hub spacing, routing for a stealth-style dropper seatpost, and a bolt-on replaceable rear derailleur hanger.

The frame geometry is up to date as well. The head tube angle is on the slacker side at 68-68.5° — depending on size — the reach is comfortably long, and the chainstays are pleasantly compact at 438mm. Ritchey designs the Ultra to be paired with a fairly generous 120mm-travel fork, too, and there’s room between the stays for 29in tires up to 2.4in-wide, or 27.5in ones up to 2.8in across.

The Ritchey Ultra is certainly an interesting beast, combining the old-school aesthetic of steel, but with modern geometry and plus-sized 27.5in wheels (or 29er ones should you choose).

There’s no hiding steel’s disadvantage in terms of material density, though, and the Ultra is rather heavy. Claimed frame weight is 2,570g for a large size; even mid-range carbon hardtails are well less than half that. But the Ultra’s slender tubes, ready-to-play geometry, legendary steel toughness, and meaty rolling stock promise decades of low-maintenance fun, free from the burdens of shock rebuilds and pivot bearing replacements, coupled with the springy ride that ferrous aficionados enthusiastically evangelize about.

Ritchey offers the Ultra in four sizes — small (15in), medium (17in), large (19in), and extra-large (20.5in) — but only as a bare frame, so it’s on you to figure out the most appropriate build. Retail price is US$999 / £899 / €999 (Australian pricing and availability is to be confirmed).

Ritchey supplied my medium tester as a complete bike to facilitate the review, outfitted with a RockShox Reba RL fork, SRAM GX Eagle 1×12 drivetrain, TRP Slate T4 hydraulic disc brakes, and a smattering of Ritchey cockpit components. I opted to sample the Ultra with a 27.5 Plus setup, which comprised a Ritchey WCS Trail 40 aluminum wheelset and 2.8in-wide Ritchey Z-Max Evolution Plus WCS tires front and rear.

The double-diamond frame layout is about as classic as can be, but with a few curves here and there to accommodate the rear brake caliper and clear the fork crown.

So equipped, but without pedals or accessories, my tester tips the scales at 12.70kg (28lb) — hardly a featherweight, but in keeping with the idea that it’s a rough-and-tumble workhorse that should presumably hold up well to regular abuse.

Nostalgia vs. reality

I love the idea behind this bike.

The idea that you can counter the unyielding ride of a hardtail with nearly three inches of air cushioning between you and the ground, and a similarly fat footprint clawing at the ground. The idea of riding a frame that I don’t have to worry about as much as I might a carbon one. The idea of leaving behind the complexity of multiple pivots and elaborate shock tuning, and returning to something simpler and more carefree. The idea of reliving that playful and involved feel that you get in such generous supply from a hardtail.

So many good ideas. And in many ways, they pan out.

Ritchey says the Ultra will clear a 27.5×2.8in tire, which is what’s fitted here, or a 29×2.4in one. That claim seems accurate, seeing as how I wouldn’t want to go any wider for fear of the knobs rubbing on the frame.

First and foremost, Ritchey has done a very good job with the handling. The relatively stable and slack front end encourages you to push things harder on technical terrain, and to learn to trust that the rear end will faithfully follow. It doesn’t take long before you remember to keep your legs soft and supple through the rough to help keep the back tire planted, and between the right-now power efficiency that only a hardtail provides and the big contact patch, even tricky climbs can often be conquered at first go.

It’s occasionally more work — both mental and physical — than a full-suspension bike, but also more rewarding when everything goes as planned.

Ritchey hasn’t gone overboard with the whole progressive thing, either. The seat tube isn’t nearly as steep as what you’ll find on the latest full-suspension bikes, for example, but being a hardtail, the Ultra’s rear end will also never sag on uphills and place you uncomfortably behind the bottom bracket, either. The neutral position that results is still the best for general pedaling mechanics, at least in my opinion, and never did I find myself pining to get further over the front end on climbs.

The tapered and integrated head tube looks especially elegant.

Bottom bracket height feels just right, too: low enough to help your body weight sink down for stable cornering on loose terrain, but not so low that I ever worried much about pedal strikes through rocky sections of trail. And the short rear end certainly doesn’t hinder getting the front wheel off the ground.

Overall stack and reach dimensions worked well for me as well. I ended up slamming the stem right atop the headset cover, but that’s more a function of the fact that my legs are relatively short for my height. XC-minded racers might prefer more handlebar drop than what the Ultra can provide, but for general-purpose trail riding, I’d say Ritchey has got things spot-on here (at least on the medium size).

I wish I could say that the overall ride quality brought me back as much as I’d hoped, though.

Ritchey declined to reveal exact details on the tubing used on the Ultra, but they don’t feel particularly thin.

One of my favorite hardtails was that old Voodoo Bizango, which was made with paper-thin Tange Prestige Ultimate Superlight steel tubes that just sang on rough trails (or, at least, that’s how I remember it). There was so much spring, so much liveliness, so much of that legendary steel magic.

Ritchey declined to provide precise tube dimensions, but based on feel, the company seems to have gone a safer route with the Ultra’s wall thicknesses as they neither feel nor sound as thin as more premium steel pipes. The Ultra is stout and efficient under power, and yes, there is also a certain amount of “give” that you don’t usually get out of a large-diameter aluminum or carbon frame. That said, those of you looking for that mythical ride quality of top-end steel might be a little disappointed.

The Ultra is good in that respect, but not exceptional. And even with 2.8in tires, the back end will still buck you pretty hard if you’re not prepared for hitting something substantial. But then again, softer-riding steel frames with thinner walls and smaller-diameter tubes also pay a price in terms of toughness.

It’s worth noting that the front triangle of that old Voodoo crumpled after a front-end impact a newer frame likely would have survived. And it’s important to keep in mind that the Ritchey occupies a fairly modest price point all things considered, so there is some element of you-get-what-you-pay-for.

The rear triangle doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of give to it, particularly with a dropper post fitted. No question, much of the ride comfort is provided by the balloon-like tires.

To be fair, the dropper post bears a decent chunk of the blame here. As compared to a good 27.2mm-diameter seatpost, a dropper offers the ride suppleness of a cast iron pipe. But even after temporarily swapping the Ritchey Kite for a fixed aluminum post, the ride quality of the Ultra didn’t improve dramatically.

Ride quality issues notwithstanding, the finish quality seemed pretty good, and a quick tear-down (and reassembly) revealed clean threads, a square bottom bracket shell, and properly spaced and aligned dropouts. Weld snobs will invariably notice that the beads aren’t as pretty as what you’d find on a high-end custom machine, but then again, this isn’t a high-end custom machine.

DIY with caution

Ritchey may sell the the Ultra only as a frame, but several items in the provided build kit reminded me all too well that it’s important to choose wisely.

The RockShox fork worked well enough for the task at hand, but its spring curve was too linear for my liking. On rougher sections of trail, it dove too far into the stroke, effectively steepening the head tube angle and making the Ultra feel twitchier and less stable than its geometry would otherwise suggest. Adding a couple of volume spacers helped the front end sit up a little higher in its travel, but even so, RockShox fits the Reba with a more basic damper than what’s found in the company’s higher-end offerings, and it still struggles to keep up when you really get moving.

Ritchey only sells the Ultra as a bare frame, but the company supplied a complete bike for the review, equipped with a full complement of Ritchey components. The WCS Trail 40 aluminum wheels held up well during testing (even after repeatedly bottoming out the tires on Colorado rocks), but the rear hub engages disappointingly slowly.

I found the stock tires to be pretty underwhelming, too. I spent years worshipping Ritchey’s long-standing Z-Max tread pattern and rounded casing profile, which offered prodigious grip on softer dirt along with highly forgiving breakaway characteristics when you pushed things too far. But that pattern doesn’t work as well on more hardpacked terrain, where something with a more squared-off shape would offer a more secure purchase.

Regardless of local conditions, I found the Z-Max’s casing to be disappointingly stiff, and the rubber compound too hard. At 14psi out back and 12psi up front, the ride feels harsh and unyielding, and the footprint doesn’t expand enough to justify the additional rotating weight. And when the pressure was even a touch too low, the bike felt squishy and dull, the rims regularly bottoming out on rocks and roots.

I eventually found my sweet spot at 12psi and 11psi (I weigh 156lb/71kg), and enjoyed a nice balance of suspension and responsiveness as a result. But even straying 0.5-1psi outside of that window resulted in a greater degradation in performance than I usually see in tires that have more flexible carcasses.

SRAM’s GX Eagle 1×12 transmission offers a huge range and excellent shifting performance at a very attainable price.

Granted, getting the tire pressure right is always critical with Plus setups, and suppleness and toughness are usually inversely related when it comes to tires. But even so, that window seems smaller than it should be, and even when I had it right, the skittery rubber compound couldn’t fully deliver on the traction benefits that Plus tires should provide.

Most of the Ritchey finishing kit was just fine: the bar offered a pleasant bend, the stem seemed stiff enough, and the dropper seatpost faithfully moved the saddle up and down like it’s supposed to (which, sadly, isn’t always the case with dropper posts). But the supplied Streem saddle was too narrow and too sparsely padded for the job, in my opinion, and the rear hub on the Ritchey wheelset was far too slow to engage with its 30-tooth ratchet ring, which occasionally made tricky climbs trickier than they needed to be.

As for the SRAM GX Eagle drivetrain, I had no complaints: it truly seems to work just as well as its more expensive brethren, albeit with a cheaper-feeling shifter. But those TRP Slate T4 brakes? Sorry, TRP, but I found them mediocre at best: too dull a feeling at the lever, not enough initial bite, and not enough ultimate power when you really need it.

Final thoughts

Memories are funny things. In my head, and I can feel the smooth and supple ride of my old steel hardtails, their springy personalities, their lively snap — or at least I think I can. Granted, some of that creamy ride was probably due to the softer dirt I rode on back then, the more flexible seatposts I used, and the thinner-gauge steel tubes that often comprised the bikes of my young adulthood. But having ridden plenty of premium steel over the years, I’m still keenly aware of its potential.

That’s not to say that the Ritchey Ultra was disappointing — far from it. It’s not a smash-and-plow kind of bike like so many full-suspension bikes are these days, but rather something that you learn to work with, to massage, to coax into doing your bidding. It offers a stout-yet-somewhat-compliant ride that is still distinctly associated with smallish-diameter steel, it should last for ages (barring rust), and the geometry is well-suited to modern riding styles.

It’s just not as springy and electric as I ultimately want a steel bike to be (and know that it can be).

Matte black. Baby blue. Classy.

How much the Ritchey Ultra appeals to you will likely depend heavily on the nature of your local trails, how you intend to ride on them, how much you loathe maintenance, your riding style, and — of course — your budget. There’s also the fact that you’re unlikely to see one of these at your local trailhead any time soon.

I’m a different rider than I used to be, and the trails I ride now bear little resemblance to the ones that made me fall in love with mountain biking. But even so, good hardtails still hold a special place in my heart. This Ultra doesn’t quite rush me back to the early days of gleefully tearing through the woods of southeastern Michigan, but it does recall a simpler time when I worried less about spring rates and damper settings and just shut my brain off and pedaled.

I reviewed Ritchey’s Road Logic steel frameset a couple of years ago, spent several years on a titanium-and-carbon Ritchey Breakaway travel road bike, and am soon wrapping up a review of Ritchey’s higher-end carbon Breakaway. I’d happily have any of those in my personal collection, and I still fantasize about adding the “right” mountain bike hardtail to fill that longstanding hole. But at least for me, the reality of this Ultra doesn’t quite fulfill its promise.

www.ritcheylogic.com

How much the Ultra appeals to you will likely depend a lot on what your local trails are like.

Tucking the brake caliper inside the rear triangle looks trick, and the mount Ritchey uses is particularly tidy. The hose routing would be problematic for any caliper that isn’t equipped with a rotatable banjo fitting, though.

Cable routing is fully external on the Ultra, but there’s provision for a stealth-style dropper.

The chainstays are quite narrow in terms of diameter, and also hug the sides of the rear wheel fairly closely. There should be no worries of heel rub here.

The angled knob pattern of the Ritchey Z-Max tires works well on softer dirt, and the rounded profile lets you lean the bike way, way over. It doesn’t work as well on harder surfaces, though.

Whether you go with a 27.5 Plus setup or a more conventional 29er one boils down to personal preference. But it’s nice that you have your choice with the Ritchey Ultra.

Star-shaped flanges are used front and rear on Ritchey’s WCS Trail 40 wheelset.

The RockShox Reba RL fork is reasonably stout, but its simpler internals certainly can’t keep up with more advanced dampers on the market. On less demanding terrain, it’s just fine, but it quickly gets out of sorts on persistently rocky and bumpy terrain.

The matching SRAM GX aluminum cranks may be a little heavy, but they get the job done. And the fact that they spin on a threaded bottom bracket (thank you, Ritchey!) means they’re less likely to creak, and easier to service, than a press-fit setup.

Slamming the stem atop the headset and running a flat bar yielded a solid cross-country position for me.

Ritchey isn’t very well known for its grips, but this lock-on model was very tacky and comfortable. The TRP Slate T4 brakes, however… pass.

The Ritchey Kite dropper seatpost worked fine during my test period, with an average amount of rotational slop in the bushings.

The post Ritchey Ultra review: Traditional steel meets modern rubber appeared first on CyclingTips.

Bidon or bottle? Regardless of what you call them, your bike is designed to carry them with the aid of an accessory.

Choosing a bottle cage should be a simple decision, and for a product that simply needs to carry a plastic liquid cannister, it’s amazing how many get it wrong. Add in the fact that bottle cages can make or break the aesthetic of a bike, and there’s a surprising amount of depth to the discussion.

For this latest instalment of CT Recommends, I asked the extended CyclingTips team what they are using and why, while pulling in some wider-reaching opinions from our VeloClub members. Here’s what we consider to be the best bottle cages.

Five things to consider

1. There’s nothing wrong with a classic: You’ll find a common theme in our picks: they all work with a regular cylindrical plastic water bottle and are bolted to the frame. Cages that use proprietary bottles, or those that combine the cage into the bottle may have merit, but we’re yet to find one that’s better than a regular old cage.

2. Low weight is cool, but it shouldn’t be a priority: There are some very good lightweight cages, and there are also examples that can barely claim to be bottle cages. Our picks below all hold the bottle when you want them to, and let go when asked. Generally speaking, if a cage weighs below 20g, and costs less than $50, it’s going to fail you.

3. Easy in, easy out: Fighting with your bottle is just dangerous. You don’t want a bottle cage that you have to think twice about – it should be easy to use. Likewise, some cages provide options for where they sit in relation to your frame’s bosses, while others allow you to pull the bottle out the side. If frame clearance is an issue, pay close attention here.

4. Rattles suck: Find a bottle cage that holds your bottles firmly enough to not rattle. As a benefit, cages that rattle also cause more cosmetic damage to those on-brand bidons.

5. Matchy matchy: Few things will ruin the aesthetic of your bike more than mismatched bottle cages. Find a cage that compliments the look of your bike, and get two of them (or use one cage; that’s fine too).

Spend more, get less

Like many things in the cycling industry, things that weigh less typically cost more. Where entry-level cages are typically made of plastic, steel or aluminium, premium picks are often carbon fibre, or titanium.

With low weights, classy styling and death grips on bottles, we’ve become partial to a small handful of premium cages. That latter element is key, especially if riding gravel or similar poor surfaces – too many cages, even expensive ones, are bottle rockets.

Receiving the most votes, including from myself, is the Arundel Mandible cage (US$75): a premium bottle vice that weighs just 28g. Our production editor, Iain Treloar, summed it up perfectly: “The Mandible has an elegant form and an excellent grip, and weighs very little. It scratches up my bottles a fair bit on the outside, but I’m not overly precious about that and given how rough my rides can sometimes be it’s a worthwhile trade-off for not losing bottles.

“I like them so much I currently have these on three bikes.”

Arundel cages were the most widely favoured. The Arundel Mandible (right) offers a tighter fit compared to the Dave-O (left), but both are extremely secure.

Iain’s sentiments are backed by VeloClub members Mark Martinet, Dan Tan, Kayce Peters, Rob Wierzbowski, Shayne Vermeulen and Glenn Stegink – who all agree the Mandible is the pick for a lightweight, reliable and good-looking bottle cage that only lets go of bottles when you want it to.

Global tech editor James Huang is another fan of Arundel cages, but prefers the Dave-O (US$65). “It holds bottles extremely well, but yet it’s still super easy to slide a bottle in and out,” said James, referring to the fact the Arundel Mandible perhaps holds bottles too well.

“I find the Mandibles to provide a more secure hold, but given how well the Dave-Os work, it’s basically just overkill at that point,” James continued. “I’ve never lost a bottle with a Dave-O (or Sideloader), including countless hours of trail use with various mountain bikes. I have a pair of made-in-Texas prototype Dave-O cages from the early 2000s that are still going strong.”

The Blackburn Camber looks like many other carbon bottle cages, but it’s function is well-proven. It’s also a little cheaper than the likes of Arundel.

Our editor-at-large Neal Rogers and VeloClub member Anders Torger both like the Blackburn Camber cages (US$50). “[I] dig the style and color options, and they work great,” said Neal. “Not cheap, though.” Meanwhile, Anders’ first preference is for cheaper, resin cages (covered below).

Our membership manager Andy van Bergen arguably rides more than anyone else on staff, and chooses the Syncros Carbon 1.0 cage (US$TBC). “I’m not really fussed about the weight, but it comes in at 29g,” Andy said. “What has impressed me is how snugly a bidon sits in the cage, but at the same time there is enough flex in the wings that it’s not difficult to pull a bottle out on the fly. I use these cages on my roadie and gravel grinder, and recently popped one on my hardtail. I’m yet to lose a bidon.”

However, as James points out, the aesthetic of a carbon fibre bottle cage doesn’t suit every bike, and for more classic setups, “it’s tough to beat a tubular titanium cage.” When it comes to titanium bottle cages, there are two clear standouts – the classic King Titanium cage (US$60), or the new kid on the block, the Silca Sicuro (USS$70).

There’s not a whole lot to differentiate the various titanium bottle cages. King is the original, and has a well-deserved following as a result. The Wolf Tooth (back left) is made by King, but adds additional mounting position options.

Our editor-in-chief, Caley Fretz, and roving reporter, Dave Everett, would both choose the King Titanium cage if budget wasn’t a concern. “Secure-hold, great looks, and you’re supporting a small business,” sums Caley.

VeloClub member Paul Duren was previously a fan of the Blackburn Camber cages, suggesting they never once dropped a bottle, however, now chooses the Silca Sicuro cages. The reason for his swap was simply that the Blackburn cages would marr every single bidon, something both Neal and Anders mentioned of their choice.

The Silca cages offer a few improvements over the original King. Most notably, they’re joined with a laser welding process.

“I’ve had King Cages in both titanium and stainless steel (US$18); the grip of the titanium ones is better and they don’t mark bottles,” said CT production editor Iain Treloar. “The stainless steel ones aren’t as strong-gripping, but I cold-set them every once in a while which helps, and I’ve never lost a bottle from them either. Plus, they’re about a third of the price of the titanium ones.”

Iain may not have lost a bottle with King Stainless cages, but I certainly have. I’ve also found they need much-too-aggressive bending to prevent issue – my vote is to splurge for the titanium.

VeloClub member Tom Galbraith recommends the Arundel Stainless cage (US$30). At nearly double the price of most stainless cages, and the heaviest (51g) in this category, it won’t be for everyone. But still, it’s one of the most secure cages offered by Arundel, and its classic styling would suit a number of metal bikes.

While these cages may be widely loved, none of them come cheaply. As Iain suggests, “neither the Mandible or either variety of King Cage is what I’d call ‘cheap’, but I think they are reasonably good value when you consider they’re the kind of item that I move from bike to bike over years rather than just replacing each time I upgrade.”

Finally, if you’re a weight-weenie, there’s one obvious choice – the CarbonWorks Bottle Cage. Weighing between 5-8g, and priced at EU€90, it’s certainly made for a select few.

Low cost, no fuss

For those on a budget, the general consensus is that resin (plastic) cages are best. They’re often comparable in weight to carbon, offer a secure hold, are super durable and are available in a variety of colours. And of course, they’re cheap.

The Bontrager Bat cage (right) is simply the best value option going.

Both James Huang and Caley Fretz feel the Bontrager BAT cage is one of the most underrated cycling products on the market. “My bargain choice is the Bontrager BAT cage, hands down,” said James.

“It’s quite inexpensive (US$15), pretty light, and offers a truly rock-solid hold,” he continued. “It’s so secure, in fact, that I often spot it on pro riders’ bikes at cobbled classics like Paris-Roubaix. Multiple mounting holes allow you to position it just right on your frame, too, and Bontrager is now even making these from reclaimed fishing nets.

The Elite Custom Race is a common favourite: it’s relatively cheap, durable and stylish. However, it’s not the best pick for off-road applications.

The other resin cage to get a number of votes is the Elite Custom Race (US$20) — a stylish, Italian-branded option that comes in a ridiculous number of colour combinations. Personally, I’ve used these for years, but now only bolt them to road-going bikes; I’ve experienced a few too many ejected bottles on gravel and trails to trust them on rougher terrain.

Dave Everett’s budget pick is the BBB FlexCage (US$TBC), citing that he’s used them extensively on road and gravel bikes and is yet to lose a bottle. Similar to the Elite Custom, they’re available in a myriad of colours and can often be found on sale.

Our managing editor Matt de Neef and video producer Phil Golston both prefer generic alloy cages (under US$10) which can be bent for a more secure hold. “They keep my bottles on my bike and that’s all I really care about” — a fair point from Matt.

Also accessible on a budget is the previously mentioned King Stainless cage. This cage is comparable with the Blackburn Chicane ($15) and King Iris (US$18) – products that were also suggested by CT staff and VC members.

Best for small frames and limited access

Got a frame with a tight clearance that forces you to run smaller, or no bottles, at all? A side-access bottle cage may be the perfect answer. As you’d expect, these let you place and remove a bottle from the side. While more commonly needed on full suspension mountain bikes or smaller-sized road bikes, there are other times where these come in handy – such as when you’re wanting to run a 1L bidon on your seattube or when bikepacking with a frame bag.

Side-access cages, such as the Specialized Zee Cage II, open up plenty of options when space is limited. The Zee Cage II works with Specialized’s SWAT system, and can carry a multi-tool below it, too.

Just be warned that most are directional so if you want to buy a matching set to use on your downtube and seat tube, you’ll want to buy one “left”, and one “right” version.

James’ favourite is an item from Arundel, the Sideloader (US$65). “[It] holds nearly as securely (as the Dave-O), but offers easier access from the side,” he said. “And yes, of course, being made of carbon fibre, they’re extremely light as well.” Alternatively, the American company has a new side-access version of its Mandible cage called the DTR and STR – they look great, but we haven’t used them yet.

Personally, I’ve had great luck with a number of cheaper resin/plastic options, including the Bontrager SideSwipe RL (US$25) and Specialized Zee Cage II (US$25).

So what’s your pick? Are there any bottle cages you’ve found that do their relatively simple task perfectly? What about the ones that have failed you?

The post CT Recommends: The best bottle cages appeared first on CyclingTips.

When it comes to road shoes, there’s a sweet spot between slipper and structure, malleability and support. Giro thinks it has found the middle of that Venn diagram with its new Imperial model. Have they?

Giro’s new Imperial is what you’d get if you mated its own Prolight Techlace with a Factor, cut holes in the sides and filled them with mesh, and added a couple of Boa dials. They’re light, with a lovely, pliant upper, a stiff sole, and an easily adjustable double-Boa lacing system. Most importantly, they do seem to hit that sweet spot between minimalism and structure that so many shoes are going for these days, providing the support you need for long days with the ability to conform to different foot shapes.

I’ve been riding in them for about six weeks, and they’ve become my go-to road shoes. Here’s why.

Giro Imperial tech details

First, let’s get the jargon and trademarks out of the way. The core of the Imperial’s construction is the use of a material called Synchwire, which is a monofilament mesh reinforced with thermal welded Teijin TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane).

Translation: The Imperial’s construction is based on a layer of mesh-like fabric that’s partially covered in tougher, but still very malleable, TPU material. The two are welded together into a one-piece upper, so that the mesh bits look like windows through the TPU material. The TPU adds support and durability in key areas. The mesh is non-stretch and serves to increase the upper’s ability to conform to your foot, plus let lots of air in and out. The only seam is on the heel, where it’s covered by the heel cup’s fabric.

That clever upper is synched down by a pair of Boa IP1 dials. These are the ones you can micro-adjust in both directions. Soft lace guides are used to cut down on hot spots over the top of the foot.

That fancy new upper is matched with an Easton SLX2 carbon sole, which has replaceable heel pads. Inside the shoe is Giro’s SuperNatural Fit Kit, which has adjustable arch support.

The thin upper and carbon sole combine for a total weight of 215 grams per shoe, in a size 42.5. This puts them within spitting distance of most other lightweight road shoes, but still 65 grams off the new S-Works Exos. This is very much in line with the whole concept behind these shoes: Giro didn’t go chasing the lowest weight. It was the Prolight Techlace for that. These are intended to be a bit more durable, and offer more support.

The Giro Imperial’s price is $425 USD/ €429/ £374. They are expensive.

Giro Imperial ride review

The construction of the Imperial may be new for Giro, but the fit and function feel quite traditional. There’s more structure and support than on Giro’s own Prolight Techlace, but the light, slipper-like feel is retained.

I’ve ridden in a lot of lightweight shoes. Most recently, James and I tested the Specialized S-Works Exos, which is a somewhat fundamental re-think of how a road shoe should fit, and how it should hold on to your foot. Those shoes felt different from the very first time I put them on; the Imperials, for me, felt immediately like home.

This is partially because I already ride in Empires quite a lot, so I’m used to the Giro shape. But it’s also because, unlike a lot of lightweight, mesh-filled shoes, the hold and fit on the Imperials doesn’t feel compromised by thin material.

The Synchwire upper is thinner and lighter than what Giro currently uses on its Empire SLX model, but it doesn’t stretch at all. Giro has been clever with its placement of thicker bands of material – they run down and away from the Boa lace loops, so that as the Boa is tightened is pulls evenly across the foot. The heel cup is well proportioned, neither too narrow nor too wide, and feels like it would accommodate a wide variety of foot shapes.

In short, the Imperials have the support of a heavier shoe, particularly in the heel, but conform to your foot like a light one. It’s a good balance, but it must be said that the Imperials still don’t hold your foot as firmly as something with more structure – think Sidi, or any other shoe with a natural upper.

The same can’t be said for the rest of the fit. Giros are always a bit narrow, and that continues with the Imperials. The twin Boa dials allow you to crank down on the shoe if you have a low volume foot, and do so without creating hotspots. The upper is flexible enough that a wider or oddly-shaped foot may get along with them, too. But as always, try before you buy.

I like shoes with two Boas. I have a high instep, so I need to be able to leave the top one looser while clamping down on the lower one, down by my toes. Shoes with a single dial rarely offer the adjustment variation between upper and lower foot that I need.

These are summer shoes. When I talk about mesh panels above, I mean actual, see-through mesh. Want to change the color of your Imperials for the day? Simply wear socks of a different color. They’ll show right through the side panels. The result is as much ventilation as you could possibly desire; a good thing when it’s toasty, but of course a bit less desirable if you’re trying to keep your toes warm.

Giro talks quite a lot about durability, and “standing up to elite racing and training.” Basically, they’re proud of the fact that the materials used in Synchlace are more damage resistant than the uppers used on some of their other lightweight shoes (and those of their competitors). Synchlace doesn’t seem to cut or scratch easily, and what marks do find their way onto the toes are usually easily buffed out with some soap and water. The soles, too, are tougher: They used more resin to protect the carbon.

After a month and a half of heavy use, the toes on mine are scuffed (I have toe overlap on one bike) but not cut. The material certainly seems more durable than the stretchy stuff on Specialized’s Exos shoes, but it’s still thin.

These aren’t going to last as long as a pair of Sidis or something. Any shoe at this weight isn’t going to be passed down to your grandkids.

The new Empire SLX

There’s not a lot to report about the new-look Empire, which also launches today. Basically, they just updated it with the new Synchwire upper. I haven’t yet ridden them, but assuming the changes mirror the Imperial, the new upper should provide a firmer hold than the current SLX, at a similar weight.

Weight is a nifty 185 grams (size 42) and they’ll set you back $375 USD.

The post Giro Imperial shoe review: Finding balance between weight and support appeared first on CyclingTips.

VAM. It’s an acronym for the Italian term “velocità ascensionale media”. Translated to English it’s “average ascent speed”.

Coined by disgraced cycling doctor Michele Ferrari, VAM is a term commonly thrown around by committed hill climbers. Ferrari is famous for pulling unnatural performances from riders as gradients increase, and so it’s a fitting name for Factor’s latest iteration of the 02, a bike built for conquering mountains.

While the majority of the bike industry’s focus has shifted away from stiffness-to-weight ratios and toward elements such as aero drag, there are still many riders who seek a feathery-light ride to propel them uphill. It’s exactly the obsession of stiffness-to-weight that the new Factor 02 VAM renews, and at just 690g for a 54cm disc brake frame, it’s a bike that looks fighting fit to go a few rounds with the most aggressive flyweights.

I’ve had my hands on a pre-production version of the Factor 02 VAM for a couple of weeks — just enough time to learn about this brand-new lightweight frame and form some opinions.

Key updates for the 02 VAM

If it weren’t for the bright red “V.A.M” logos over the raw coated frame, you’d be forgiven for thinking this was the original Factor 02. However, this bike has received more than a new name and lick of matte clear coat. The new 02, the 02 VAM, is a case of refined processes, fresh manufacturing techniques, subtle updates, and a materials list that reads like a first-year engineering student boasting on Reddit.

The original 02 was built light and stiff, and also with climbing in mind. It’s a bike that has commonly been the go-to for Factor’s sponsored teams, first One Pro Racing (2016), then AG2R-La-Mondiale (2017/2018) and currently Pro Conti squad Roompot-Charles and the Parkhotel Valkenburg Women’s Cycling Team.

The original 02 was by no means a slouch on the scales: a 54cm painted rim brake frame had a claimed weight of 800-850g and 850-890g for the disc-brake version. However, the 02 VAM knocks 100g off the weight of its predecessor, with a rim brake 54cm frame said to be just 670g and the disc version coming in at 690g (with smaller sizes losing, and larger sizes gaining, 30-40g per size). The revised forks are equally feathery, with the disc version tipping the scales at a claimed 310g.

The pictured 54cm test sample weighs 6.73kg without bottle cages or pedals. That’s with a full Shimano Dura-Ace R9170 Di2 groupset and CeramicSpeed OSPW, Black Inc Black Thirty clinchers (1,420g claimed), Vittoria Corsa 2.0 25c tyres and regular butyl tubes. There is not a single super-light part used to hit that weight.

That weight reduction may be equal to a few gulps of water, but it’s a sizeable percentage off an already light option. More importantly, though, Factor claims to have shaved off the grams whilst retaining the same stiffness numbers, increasing frame compliance and growing tyre clearance to 30mm.

Cable routing has been cleaned up, and now both rim and disc brake frames can be run with either mechanical or electronic shifting. On the disc frame, both the hydraulic hose and Di2 wire enter at the headtube, while a grommet replaces the plastic cover on the downtube if you want to run clickity shifting. Also new is the use of direct-mount brakes on the rim brake frame (seatstay mounted at rear), selected for the improved braking and greater tyre clearance they provide.

There’s a new headset topcap cover that provides a more integrated look, too. Compared to the previously used CeramicSpeed headset top cap, it’s designed to match the supplied Black Inc integrated carbon bar and stem. Factor offers the top cap in both 5 or 20mm stacks, and CeramicSpeed bearings still hide within.

The geometry has been tweaked, too. Note that the smallest 46cm frame size is not offered in the VAM.

What hasn’t changed is the use of a round 27.2mm seatpost, internal seatpost wedge and the BBRight pressfit bottom bracket. Designed by Cervelo, the BBRight system provides an additional 11mm to the non-drive side of the frame when compared to standard PF30 – in the process widening the available surface area of the downtube.

Factor will be selling the 02 VAM as a frameset (US$4,799), which somewhat generously includes its sister company’s Black Inc seatpost, one-piece handlebar and stem, carbon fibre bottle cage (just one) and an aluminium computer mount to work with the included bars. Framesets also include a CeramicSpeed headset, CeramicSpeed PF30 bottom bracket, Wheels Mfg 24mm reducer adapters (for running Shimano cranks) and bartape.

The lack of paint means Factor can’t hide any defects or shortcuts. I’m told production models will be cleaner in appearance.

The 02 VAM comes stock in the pictured stealth matte clear coat with red highlights — i’s extremely light and there’s no hiding the layup beneath. Other colour details are available through Factor’s recently launched Prisma studio. A gloss clear coat is said to add approximately 20g to the frame weight, and choosing a fully painted design will add at least 80g. Yes, it appears that much of the VAM’s weight savings are simply from the lack of paint.

The original 02 will remain in Factor’s line, and will now retail for US$3,799 but without the BlackInc one-piece bar and stem or CeramicSpeed pieces. That actually makes the new 02 VAM look like comparatively good value, especially when you know what’s inside it. A quick little composite materials class is now in session.

Optimised gram by gram

Factor’s name is taken from the word “factory” and given the company owns its own, founder Rob Gitelis was happy to share the specific processes and new materials used.

Factor is one of a select few bike companies to have its own factory in Asia. Like other self-manufactured brands, the factory started making bikes for others before turning to its own.

Most notably, the 02 VAM is Factor’s first frame to use latex-covered EPS (polystyrene foam) mandrels during frame moulding. The use of latex allows for increased pressure in the moulding bladders and produces a smoother interior finish, better composite compaction, less wasted resin and the ability to utilise more complex shapes. That all said, our favourite ex-Boeing composite engineer, turned carbon frame repair specialist, Raoul Luescher, says it’s now a common method for high-end frame production.

Hidden away on the innermost walls of the 02 VAM are layers of TeXtreme fibres. First used in bicycles by Felt and more recently in Giro’s flagship shoes and helmets, TeXtreme is a “spread tow” (effectively a thinly spread layer of woven carbon), which is less likely to wrinkle and easier to shape into complex forms. This patented concept uses the carbon material more efficiently, and so less of it is required – hence why TeXtreme frames tend to be so light.

The 02 VAM’s top tube and downtube are apparently also treated to a Pitch carbon fibre, otherwise known as ultra-high modulus carbon. The material is incredibly stiff, but as Luescher attests to, it’s also more brittle, and with a raw cost some 12 times greater than more common PAN carbon fibre, it’s no wonder it’s only found in small sections of premium frames.

Boron fibres supposedly hide within the seattube. It’s likely they help to reinforce the integrated seatclamp area.

The materials engineering class continues with the 02 VAM’s seattube which hosts a composite of carbon and Boron fibres. Boron first appeared in bicycles some 15 years ago with Bontrager using the material to reinforce the clamping areas of its premium handlebars. As Luescher explained, Boron fibres are high modulus and great in compressive duties, which backs up Bontrager’s former use of the material.

Factor has used the material to reinforce the bottom bracket junction, front derailleur braze-on attachment point, and material surrounding the integrated seat clamp and has then stripped away non-critical material elsewhere in the tube to introduce flex (compliance).

Like many premium carbon bikes of today, the 02 VAM’s tube shaping and specific layup are tailored to each of the six frame sizes. Taking it a step further than many, even repeatable pieces, such as the bottom bracket junction, are said to be frame-size specific.

Wrenching the Factor 02 VAM

Setting up the 02 VAM is a relatively simple affair. There are no proprietary component fitments to contend with, cable routing is simply run on the outside of the handlebar before it reaches the frame, and the pressfit bottom bracket tolerances are impressively snug and creak-free. And a quick check inside the frame supports Factor’s claim of a smooth interior finish.

The BBRight bottom bracket offers benefits over the original PF30 design, but poor past experiences will have many wary.

Speaking of that bottom bracket, the use of a pressfit shell no doubt helps Factor hit the frame weight they do, and makes for wide-open access to the internal cable routing, too. But it’s worth noting the supplied CeramicSpeed bottom bracket and Wheels Mfg 24mm adapters are a fair whack heavier than a regular threaded bottom bracket. By providing a 30mm bottom bracket and 24mm adapters, Factor has ensured the provided bottom bracket won’t go to waste. And while the combination works admirably well, my preference is to use Shimano cranks with a single-piece conversion bottom bracket – experience says fewer pieces equals fewer noises.

I did run into an issue with the provided Black Inc seatpost where the undersized carbon rails of my Specialized saddle would rock in the clamp, while the somewhat oversized carbon Fizik rails were rock solid in the same post. It is, however, a standard 27.2mm seatpost and so I simply swapped it out to use my preferred perch.

Care should also be taken when removing the seatpost — I can confirm that you don’t want to accidentally drop the seatpost binder wedge into the frame. Thankfully a blob of sticky grease on the clamp should prevent such an incident. Once installed, it offers a rock-solid hold and suffered no slipping or creaking.

The 02 VAM Disc comes with bolt-up thru-axles. They’re lighter, cleaner-looking and more aero, but you’ll need a 6mm hex-key to remove a wheel.

Also, just be wary that the washers on the disc bike’s bolt-up thru-axles are not contained, and they can slide off the axle while transporting a bike – simply re-install the axle back into the frame and you’ll never have an issue.

Riding the Factor 02 VAM

From the very first pedal stroke, the 02 VAM is everything you’d expect it to be: light, stiff and quick to change direction.

You should feel right at home on the 02 VAM if you’re coming from an aggressive race bike with traditional racing angles. The short wheelbase, 406mm chainstays (410mm for the two largest sizes), lowish bottom bracket and somewhat low stack provide an almost impatient feel to the bike and it takes minimal input to see it swoop into a direction change. This feel is only aided by the reassuringly stiff platform.

The steeper the better for the 02 VAM. This is a bike that loves to be thrown side-to-side as you stomp up a hill.

The 02 VAM really shines as the gradient increases, and really, the steeper and smoother the road, the better. The stiff chassis, nippy handling, and low weight make it a pleasure to stand out of the saddle and sway the bike side-to-side. Both up and down, it’s a beautifully well-mannered ride on smooth tarmac. As is often cited for race bikes, the stiffness provides a sense of communication with the road — you can feel what your tyres are doing through the pedals, and react to surface changes accordingly.

While Factor claims that both the Boron-composite seattube and revised fork crown were included to improve the bike’s compliance over the original 02, I still found it a relatively stiff ride that can become a handful on poor surfaces. Take the 02 VAM onto what feels like a bump-filled dirt road that’s been covered in course tar, and you’ll soon feel the unyielding rigidity from the lower part of the frame. This skittish feeling had me stiffening up and over-braking as a result.

The supplied Black Inc handlebars are a nice addition and help to soothe the ride.

However, that stiff feeling is mostly related to what is felt through the pedals, and up top your hands and bum are a little more protected. The 27.2mm carbon seatpost offers some give, and there are plenty of flexible aftermarket options if a softer ride is the goal. And despite the appearance, the Black Inc one-piece bar and stem is somewhat forgiving, and there’s a subtle springy feel to it when in the drops. Likewise, with room for 30c tyres – there’s plenty of scope to tame this steed.

That handlebar springiness could also be classified as flex. Pulling on the bars in a sprint gives no detection of flex through the frame or fork, but there is some give at the bars. The flex is not an issue for my pre-emptive winter weight of 72kg — it doesn’t impact the way the bike handles or accelerates, and perhaps if it were an issue, you’d be better served on an aero-focussed bike, anyhow.

Gotta love those hills

Unquestionably light, efficiently stiff, and begging for a change of pace or direction, the 02 VAM is everything you’d expect a weight-focussed bike of this price to be. And while that price is high, it’s also not unreasonable when you consider the long list of premium components the bike includes.

Science tells us that a bike with an aerodynamic approach will be the faster choice on flat or rolling roads. Similarly, this bike is not my recommendation if all you’ve got to ride is rough tarmac. But when the topographic lines are closely bunched together, or you just love the thrill a low weight bike offers on the first kick, then the 02 VAM is just about the perfect tool for the job.

Gallery

The 02 VAM is Factor’s newest racing bike, and is expected to make its debut under riders of the Parkhotel Valkenburg Women’s Cycling Team.

While the internal cable routing and one-piece bar suggest aerodynamic thought, drag simply wasn’t a design criteria for this bike.

Both the disc and rim brake versions of the 02 VAM now offer space for a 30mm (measured) tyre.

The tapered fork neatly mates with the frame’s headtube.

Factor’s use of the BBRight bottom bracket design provides for an additional 11mm of downtube width.

The brake hose and Di2 wire enter at the front of the headtube and can be joined for a clean look. Mechanical groupsets will see the gear housing enter at the top of the downtube.

The integrated headset top cap is one of the defining aesthetic features of the 02 VAM. The original 02 uses a simpler round top cap from CeramicSpeed.

Factor provides the 02 VAM with a Black Inc handlebar and stem, bartape and computer mount (not pictured).

The front derailleur is mounted to a stiff braze-on point. Front shifting is noticeably crisp as a result.

The red stripes are a telling detail of the 02 VAM’s racing intentions.

Velocità Ascensionale Media.

The post Factor 02 VAM Disc 2020 frameset review: Light, made lighter appeared first on CyclingTips.