The company specialises in manufacturing steel-framed bikes, selling them either online or from its Bristol- and London-based shops, but will close down, with all its premises already listed as closed online.

However, the company’s website and social media accounts are still live, and though most models are listed as sold out, orders for frame sets, parts and accessories are invited in a Facebook post as recently as Tuesday, November 10.

That was the same day local news site, Bristol 24/7, reported that the company’s owner, Matt Mears, had emailed investors that their money would not be returned and the business would be winding down.

The closure follows two crowdfunding campaigns, first in 2017 and again in 2022.

"You put your money and trust into Temple, and I’m very sorry that the business hasn’t delivered the outcome we hoped for. I know this is disappointing news," Mears wrote, according to Bristol 24/7.

In the email, Mears explained the company had experienced issues with their supply chain along with rising costs for materials and energy, saying: "It’s an exceptionally difficult time to run a bicycle business."

"We’ve worked hard to turn the business around while managing persistent pressure on cash flow. We substantially reduced overheads, launched new products, relocated our headquarters and opened a new showroom.

"Our electric bike performed well, but this was offset by weaker sales elsewhere.

"The business also has existing debt commitments, and I don’t see a realistic route to generating the profits and cash reserves needed to meet them. Taken together, I no longer believe the current model offers a realistic route to a sustainable business," Mears said in his email.

Bristol 24/7 also reports that Mears hopes to continue in the bicycle industry, using his experience in another business focussed on parts and accessories.

Mears launched Temple in 2014 while still an engineering student at Bristol University, the business making a variety of steel-framed bikes, mostly using tubes from compatriot company, Birmingham-based Reynolds. Their range includes regular road bikes, gravel, hybrid and city bikes, alongside E-bikes and even step-through frames. As recently as April 2026, Temple opened a new workshop and retail on the outskirts of Bristol.

The road season might be at an end, but Cyclingnews isn't slowing down. Subscribe for unlimited access to our comprehensive news coverage, industry-leading CN Labs testing, expert columnists, and so much more. Plus, the Cyclingnews app means you can stay up-to-date wherever you go! Join today.

For the inaugural episode, we're shining a light on CN Labs, the longstanding series of wind tunnel tests, rolling resistance tests and other empirical inquisitions into bikes, gear and industry trends.

Over the course of the past week, subscribers, readers and followers have been submitting questions to Josh, Will and Tom - the CN tech team responsible for the aforementioned tests. Today, subscribers alone will get to read their answers.

So whether you're curious about the technical details of our wind tunnel protocol, want to know what future tests we have in mind, or even the bike we'd choose for Roubaix, you'll find it below.

And if you're not yet subscribed, then there's no better time to join our ever-growing community that gets unlimited access to all our industry-leading tests, expert tech insight, comprehensive race coverage, and plenty of subscriber-exclusive articles, like our AskCN Q&As! Click here to subscribe.

I trusted this was a solid theory, but we verified it in 2025 when we did our 12 aero bikes test. We not only took along the Emonda, but also the Scott Foil we'd also tested in 2024 as a second 'baseline'.

Using the same protocols, both bikes were around six watts faster than the previous year. If we didn't take a baseline at all, we'd have just concluded that everything tested in 2025 was a similar amount (six watts) faster than the bikes we tested in 2024, even if they were actually equivalent.

The difference between the two baselines (the Foil was around 35 watts faster) changed by just 0.65w across the two tests.

We found 18 watts between the fastest and slowest options, but perhaps most interesting was that there was as much variance between the different high end options as there was between cheap and expensive. This, we believe, is because when you get into the high-end options, fabric choice is tailored to speed.

How about a handlebar showdown? As this is a leading edge, what about exposed cables versus internal routing for the same bars / one piece vs. aero bar and stem etc. It seems like this could be a good place to find some speed without changing one's whole bike (older frames unite LOL) (btlrck)

Would a 35mm tyre fitted to a rim optimised for 35mm tyres be as aero as a 28mm tyre on a rim optimised for 28mm tyres? (tc_fair_weather_rides)

As tyre width grows, so does aero drag. A 32mm tyre on the Zipp 303 XPLR wheel is faster than a 28mm tyre on the Hunt CGR 40, but this will mostly be because the Zipp wheel is 14mm deeper.

Remember, though, speed isn't only made up of aerodynamics. I implore you to read our test on 40mm tyres, as we tackled this question fairly head-on. On rougher surfaces, a 35mm tyre is 13 watts faster (per tyre) than a 28mm tyre. When we swapped to a different rim optimised for wider tyres, that saving grew to around 55w per tyre.

However, on smooth tarmac, the benefit of going wider was actually negative. Rolling resistance didn't change with any significance, and the aero got marginally worse.

So the real trade-off is aero versus rolling resistance on the surface you ride, plus a little bit of weight, cornering and acceleration peppered into the equation too. And you'll probably find that the lower tyre pressure of wider tyres means more comfort, better grip, and less chance of a puncture too.

But even if the wind is coming at you from 90° to the right, the actual experienced yaw angle will be less than this, because you're creating your own headwind by moving through air.

There are a few mathematical models that have calculated - in extreme detail - the likelihood of experiencing any given wind angle at any given time, taking into account ambient wind conditions, average riding speeds and so on.

To solve for watts, we calculate a weighted average based on the weightings supplied by one of these mathematical models.

The models all create a bell curve that centres around 0°, and in all cases, the probability of experiencing anything beyond 15° on either side is so small that it doesn't make any difference to the results when we calculate that average, and thus it would be a waste of time to test it.

Next up is Will Jones, who has fronted the Cyclingnews Tech YouTube channel since its launch in Spring, during which time he's ridden and reviewed over two dozen flagship race bikes.

And finally, me (Josh Croxton).

That's all for today, folks. With so many questions still to answer, I've convinced my colleagues to let me do a second part in the coming weeks. Feel free to drop any new questions into the comments of this article, and I'll endeavour to get to them.

And with that, thanks for reading!

The deal, which is with the team’s Basque Country parent organisation Fundación Euskadi, will see the team not only riding their Teammachine SLR 01 frame sets, but also using their cockpits and wheels.

BMC have been a presence in the men’s peloton for some years, and currently provide bikes to the Tudor Pro Cycling Team. Before that, they worked with AG2R Citroën, Dimension Data, CCC and, obviously BMC Racing. However, they have not worked with a women’s team since at least the creation of the UCI Women’s WorldTour in 2016.

The company recently teased the partnership with a press release, saying "it’s about time we saw BMC bikes in both the men’s and Women’s Grand Tours," and the partnership has now been announced. As Laboral are one of the sport’s second-tier ProTeams, they have realised their desire to be present at the biggest women’s stage races.

"This partnership represents an exciting new chapter for BMC," said BMC’s head of marketing, David Heine. "As one of the brands that supported women's cycling early on, we are proud to return to the highest level of the sport with Laboral Kutxa-Fundación Euskadi.

"Women’s racing is thrilling, inspiring, dynamic, and growing rapidly worldwide. We look forward to supporting the team with our performance-driven bikes and proudly cheering for the riders throughout the season."

The partnership is part of BMC’s bid to gain more relevance with younger and more diverse riders and, as the team has riders from both Colombia and Chile on their 2027 roster, will help the company expand their presence not just in Spain but also South America.

Spanish rider Sandra Alonso will return in 2027, having several seasons of experience on the WorldTour level and raced the Tour de France Femmes three times.

Laboral Kutxa have been riding at UCI level since 2020, starting life as Continental level team before moving up to ProTeam in 2025. During the 2026 season they rode Chinese XDS bikes and Shimano groupsets, it is not yet known whether Shimano will remain on board.

The president of Fundación Euskadi, Iñaki Isasi, is rightfully pleased with the partnership. "Their technical standards and culture of performance correspond to the ambitions of Laboral Kutxa-Fundación Euskadi. This support allows us to approach the season with confidence and continue to grow our women's team at the highest level."

The road season might be at an end, but Cyclingnews isn't slowing down. Subscribe for unlimited access to our comprehensive news coverage, industry-leading CN Labs testing, expert columnists, and so much more. Plus, the Cyclingnews app means you can stay up-to-date wherever you go! Join today.

We are lucky here at Cyclingnews to regularly test the best road bikes at the forefront of the technological arms race. Every bike is more progressive than the last, with bold new advances in frame geometry (see the Ridley Noah and the Factor ONE) and aerodynamics (See the Factor ONE again, if you didn’t do it the last time).

The new Look 795 Blade RS doesn’t have one thing I can point to as being a progressive feature. In actual fact it’s perhaps the most ‘normal’ race bike I’ve ridden in some time, perhaps since the last Giant Propel (a bike it bears a striking resemblance to, it must be said), but I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all as it has done everything I’ve asked of it with supreme competence and with a front end in particular that makes it absolutely sublime.

Whether it’s flat miles, protracted climbs, or my boundless appetite for a punchy hill sprint, it’s eaten it all up and asked for seconds. It’s also been an excellent test bed for some of the fastest aero wheels from our latest LABS test, which made for a convenient excuse to hold onto it for a while longer.

Design and aesthetics

As you might have gathered from the opening, I am quite fond of the 795 Blade RS. I’m not, however, overly enamoured with the aesthetics. It’s not a bad-looking bike by any means, but, insofar as a great many aero bikes now look almost indistinguishable, it looks like a generic aero bike.

Slap a Giant logo on, and you could convince me it’s a Propel, and maybe if I wasn’t paying too much attention you could do the same with a Merida logo and goad me into believing it was the old Reacto 9000. It’s also (shocker!) pretty similar-looking to the old one, just a little fuller in the tubes.

Still, with the Scope Artech wheels in, and in the matte black, mostly paintless pro spec finish, it does have a certain menace about it that cuts through the generic silhouette. I have warmed to it, but turning up on group rides it doesn’t turn heads like other machines can; perhaps that’s just down to the fact that it isn’t as hyped of a brand as many others that spring to mind.

The old Look Blade, according to our own wind tunnel testing, was a bit of a brick in aerodynamic terms. Look makes big claims of a 15-watt saving, which is frankly enormous, and also an unusually specific claim of a saving of 2 minutes and 27 seconds over the course of stage 19 of the 2026 Tour de France, which was the big hilly one with the murderous Col de Sarenne, a climb you should definitely do if you’re ever nearby. This stage was, unsurprisingly, won by Tadej Pogacar, a full 6 minutes and 33 seconds ahead of Ion Izaguirre, the fastest rider on the Look Blade on the day. Lucky he wasn’t on the old one, eh?

We have wind tunnel tested the new Look Blade 795 RS, and at the 40km/h we tested at, I think the claims of a 15 watt difference are somewhat fanciful. Despite this, however, the new Look Blade is among the fastest bikes we’ve tested now, especially with a rider on (how most bikes are ridden). If you want the full monty on how it performed then go read our in-depth write up, but considering the old Blade remains the slowest road bike we’ve ever tested as a bike only, and third from slowest with a rider on, it’s quite an astounding turnaround in aerodynamic terms from the French outfit.

In geometric terms, it’s pretty spot on for a race bike. Compared to the latest Cannondale SuperSix Evo, as I have reviewed that recently, it’s a little more compact in the frame, but with the same chainstay length, an ever so slightly (1.8mm) shorter reach and a significant 15.8mm lower stack height. The new SuperSix already has quite a low front end, and even with a couple of headset spacers fitted, the Look felt slammed. Peruse the geometry charts for yourself, but ultimately it’s bang on for, on paper, an excellent handling package, even if you might need the number of a good chiropractor.

As a coddled media darling, I had to make do with the top spec machine, complete with Shimano Dura-Ace (not long for this world now we’ve spotted the new one), and the extremely fancy, extremely expensive (a £2,500 upgrade), and by our reckoning extremely fast Scope Artech wheels.

All in all it’s a £12,000 bike ($12,960) or at least a tenner shy of that magic figure. You do get a pretty healthy degree of customisation at point of sale. Choose your groupset, paint, and wheels, and you can select your stem length and bar width independently as the cockpit is technically a separate system.

In an ideal world I’d have had the in-line seatpost, and a 36cm bar, not a 38, but if I was in a position to drop £12k on a French superbike I could have those options at no extra cost. There aren’t any options for crank length, however, and none of the groupset options come with a power meter; this is perhaps a blessing with Dura-Ace - generally regarded as being a little inaccurate, but certainly a frustration for those opting for SRAM Force. Red, at least in the UK, is off the table.

A final note on the cockpit, as I did break it… As I often do when a bike arrives, I simply pushed the levers in a bit (because the UCI has no jurisdiction over this maverick) and rode it home from the office. As it turns out, this was an error, and the hoods managed to bore their way through quite a bit of carbon in an hour, meaning I had to replace them.

This was very much user error, and I should have done it properly and used a torque wrench, but I didn’t, and I paid the price. This is basically just a cautionary tale. The flip side is I got to take the cockpit apart to replace the bars, which was beautifully easy; four big M6 bolts hold it all together, and swapping the bars in total took less than half an hour. More than that, the computer mount itself integrates into these big bolts, and while I am not always a fan of proprietary integrated mounts, this is a very good example, and I’d be much happier slinging a big heavy light or action camera off the bottom of it than I would with many others.

On my scales, with no cages or pedals but with the slightly overbuilt computer mount, it weighs a very respectable 6.95kg, and that's with a healthy glug of sealant in each wheel rather than the scant breath of pink fluid most test bikes are supplied with to cheat the inevitable weigh-in. That's good going for a very aerodynamic bike, and sporting 65mm deep wheels. Swap them out for a set of Hunt 5AM Limitless, and you'll have a setup that should be just as aero, but basically on the UCI weight limit.

In this spec, the gearing is a respectable 52/36t chainset paired with an 11-30 cassette. Bristol and the surrounding area are beset by short, steep climbs (it’s like Flanders, but with better food), and I could have done with a 32 or a 34, and this is something you can’t change at the point of sale. C’est la vie.

Performance

There are certain bikes that excel in one particular area. The Ridley Noah, for example, was astoundingly good in a race-cosplay scenario for the benefits of testing. Likewise, the Factor Elara on gravel has that mad fork, aero, and progressive geometry, but both felt like their race focus was both a strength and a detriment in some ways.

The new Look Blade falls, in my mind at least, into quite rarefied company alongside the Cannondale SuperSix and the Pinarello Dogma F, as a beautifully dialled all-rounder, at least in handling terms. The Dogma was close to perfect, while I think the spec choices of the SuperSix let it down, but all three have a poise and balance across nearly every scenario that is hard to ignore. Jacks of all trades in the best possible sense, and here at least there’s also a very compelling aerodynamic package to complement the handling.

It doesn’t have quite the same lightness of touch that I found the Dogma had. It’s less deft, and a little less refined, but the differences are pretty marginal. The rear end isn’t hyper-short in a way that can leave a bike feeling a little unstable, but this is offset by a wonderfully responsive front end.

With my saddle slammed forwards and a healthy 120mm stem, coupled with the low position that perhaps wasn’t overly sustainable in the long term, the front end traction was sublime and on the twisty lanes around Bristol it was magnificent, picking up a top ten on a local descent while out filming, so not even going all-out. It did a pretty sublime job of making you forget you were on what is an extremely aerodynamic bike with pretty chunky tubes in comparison to the all-rounders it felt like riding.

Descending, whether it’s on twisty lanes or fast, flowy, open roads is sensational. If you want a confidence-inspiring descender then perhaps this isn’t the frameset for you, but much like with the Factor Elara on gravel, if you’re already confident it’s extremely rewarding. Playful, even when the speeds tick over that 55-ish km/h where you usually have to lock in a little more and pay attention. Get up to the 70s and you do need to actually concentrate though, as the playfulness can become twitchy.

It doesn’t greatly feel like an aero bike, fast though it is. Not in the same way as a Cervélo S5 or the aforementioned Ridley Noah, bikes whose raison d’être is flat out speed. It never seems to coax you into an aero tuck on the flat, perhaps because there isn’t an unusual handlebar or whopping head tube or mental looking pair of forks reminding you that you should be trying a little harder please and thank you. Nevertheless, it barrels along with aplomb, and dare I say that with a 36cm bar it would be a force to be reckoned with.

Stiffness is right on the money, too. It’ll cope with high wattage sprints, but I never felt like I was being rattled to pieces, even over what passes for tarmac in some parts of Bristol. My hands never got booted off the bars and nor did I get bucked off the saddle unduly. It never felt unyielding like the Incolor SSR; there’s still some degree of compliance engineered in, but it’s plenty stiff enough where you need it to be to feel efficient and resilient.

It doesn’t have the feel of a true climber like the Scott Addict RC, though with really shallow wheels it would close the gap despite probably looking awful. It comes with a pretty small cassette (11-30), which makes steeper stuff either a challenge or very quickly dispatched depending on how the legs are feeling, but for your generic climbing efforts it’s pretty excellent here, too.

I will say it helps that it came with a set of Scopes. I have reviewed these wheels, on a Dogma as it happens, and they’re magnificent to ride but not necessarily a pair of hoops I’d want to live with. Even swapped out for different (but very good) new Hunts it was still excellent, so it’s not like the wheels are doing all the heavy lifting. The other wheel options, if you don’t upgrade to Scopes, are a little more lacklustre. The stock option is a set of Look own-brand wheels, or you can pay £700 for a set of Mavic Cometes or Fulcrum Speeds, neither of which are particularly compelling. I’d keep the base model and save up for something really trick, or conceivably just keep the fast wheels you already have.

Much like the Dogma and the SuperSix, then, it isn’t necessarily the best at one thing, but it does almost everything extremely well indeed. I think from a performance standpoint that low front end, a clearly pro derived feature that’s somewhat falling out of favour in recent seasons anyway, will perhaps be the achilles heel. It’s a shame to have a giant stack of spacers on a bike this fast, just from a visual perspective, and I can’t help but feel taking the stack up to match that of the SuperSix at least would make it a more compelling prospect for those who want to go fast, have a bike that handles beautifully, but aren’t as flexible as a WorldTour professional. Or Look could just develop a riser bar that could be bolted onto the stem for a slammed but seamless look.

One thing that I think is hard to cram into the ‘performance’ section, but nevertheless I’m going to do it anyway as it’s my party, is the cool factor. There is a certain je ne sais quoi about having a French superbike with heritage that’s also, now, very fast too. I’m not saying that everyone and their dog has a Specialized, but there’s something here that you don’t get with the all-conquering but expected performance of a Specialized, the cliche’d passione of a Pinarello, or the slight facelessness of a Giant. It does French in a way Van Rysel doesn’t manage, but seemingly without any detriment to performance.

Value

£12k, or $12,960 in yankee money, is big boy cash. It isn’t quite Dogma F money, undercutting the passionate Italians with a shrug by £600 or so. Like for like you get better wheels on the Look, if you opt for the Scopes anyway, and all else being equal it is definitely up there as a match for the Dogma in my eyes, so plus points there.

Compared to the much-yardsticked S-Works Tarmac SL9 it is a full £9 cheaper, so spend that on a pair of flat whites at the café and you’re talking absolute equivalence. The Look is more configurable, which to me works in its favour, but in the grand scheme of things you’re getting the same level of bike whether you shop from Burgundy or Morgan Hill.

Personally I’d probably have the Look so I could configure it to fit me a little better, and for the aforementioned cool points, and perhaps because I really like France, but you’ll not be let down in either case.

Verdict

I really liked the new Look Blade 795 RS. It was aided by having the top spec, but like the best bikes I’ve tested, it does everything with confidence and composure without feeling like it’s leaning too hard into one particular wedge of the performance spider diagram.

It handles beautifully and with a playful front end that I’ve adored, it’s very aerodynamic now, you can configure it to a decent degree at point of sale, it’s French without being bad or silly and so is cooler for it, it climbs and sprints very well, the cockpit is pretty easy to work on, and while it looks a little generic you could spin that as ‘understated’ if you so wish. The only real issue I can point to is perhaps the stack figure is quite low, which may alienate a certain proportion of the customer base who don’t want a bad back or a massive spacer stack.

I’m glad it’s no longer aerodynamically equivalent to a wheelie bin, as that would have made this review a lot harder to write and the bike a lot harder to like, set against the manufacturer's claims. All in all, an excellent bike.

The Argon 18 Nitrogen Pro has been one of the most requested bikes for review on our YouTube channel, and as ever, we aim to please. Having tested it in the wind tunnel, Will has also been giving it the runaround to see how this futuristic machine stacks up in the real world.

If you're already a Cyclingnews subscriber, you can watch it now, a full fortnight before it goes up on YouTube. If you're not... well, why not? There's still time to get access to this and a tonne of other premium content from across the site.

{kiosq_button:center}

Svelte tube profiles that rely on squared off ends for aero performance and more standard clean lines rather than sharp angles and flared elements result in a bike that looks like a rather normal bike.

Interestingly this is Look's out-and-out aero machine, but it doesn't resemble the deep profiled aero bikes from the likes of Factor, Van Rysel, or other brands. It does however have a rather narrow front profile, something the Factor ONE and Tarmac SL9 have all pursued with the leading edge of the bike often being one of the more important elements when it comes to overall aerodynamic performance of a bike.

The bike doesn't come with dedicated aero bottle cages, like the ENVE Melee V2 or Trek Madone, but the bottle boss placement and tube shapes are designed to limit the negative impact that fitting a 500ml round bottle tends to have an aerodynamic performance.

Tyre clearance is claimed to be 34mm, while Look states that the bike can come in at 7kg fully race ready. What that means is not specified, but we'd hope that means with bottle cages, computer mount, and pedals fitted.

The protocol

We're now somewhat dab handed when it comes to conducting these wind tunnel tests and for this latest round we followed the same protocol as previously.

We're already outlined in great detail how we went about testing in our 2025 aero bike shootout article if you want to go over it in all it's glory there.

However I'll outline the main principles here as well.

1. Bike only:

This is the first test, and involves the bike being tested as stock with the wheels that it comes with and all components as standardised as we can.

The position is adjusted to be as close as possible between bikes in terms of size, handlebar width, stack, and seat height, but the saddle, groupset, and all the components are as sold.

This allows us to test the bike as is without the added complexity of a riders legs acting as large moving pistons disrupting the airflow. Although not attributable to real world, it can show some interesting differences between bikes that may have data that suggests they are fast, but not necessarily in the real world where a rider is present.

2. With a rider:

Obviously no bike can be ridden without a rider, so testing with a rider present on the bike is essential for actual real world applicable testing that matters to you.

Some bikes are designed with riders on them, while others are not. Comparing the two tests can give us an indication of who has followed certain design methodologies.

The only issue is that, even while keeping rider position as consistent as possible, it is difficult to keep the margin of error as small as the frame-only. The margin for error is greater, yes, but still gives us a good idea of good performing bikes, bad performing ones, and standout offerings.

3. Bike only, control wheels

Wheels make up a descent amount of aero performance for a bike as they are one of the first things the air hits and the last that it leaves.

We use a standardised set of wheels (Enve SES 4.5) and tyres (28mm Continental GP5000 S TR) because some of the test bikes come with 40mm wheels and 28mm tyres, while others came with 60mm options and 30mm tyres. There is also the fact that some frames are designed to perform best with certain wheels, while others are not.

Testing with a control set of wheels allows us to test the frame, fork, and components in isolation somewhat to the effect of a synergistic wheelset.

We can also infer some wheel performance testing from doing this, as some wheels test worse than the control ones, and others better.

All testing was done across yaw angles (the angle the wind hits the bike) of -15°, -10°, -5°, 0°, 5°, 10° and 15° to allow us to assess crosswind performance.

Testing itself is conducted at 40km/h as a decided speed that the majority of buyers may expect to go on their faster-paced grouprides, group events, or giving a road bike time trial a go. Rather than the 45kph+ that WorldTour pros race. We appreciate everyone will go faster than this at points, but that'll mostly be with the support of a tailwind or a hill.

Bike-only tests collect data for 10 seconds at each yaw angle, as there is less noise (messy data) and variance here, while With-Rider tests are done for 30 seconds each time to reduce the amount of noise we get from the tests and reduce the error margin.

To try and standardise things we ensure all testing is done in the same gear, so rear mech placement is similar, and with the same front tyres as they are the first thing the wind impacts. Position on the bike is kept as close as possible between bikes thanks to a laser outline so body position has limited impact on the results.

Two Elite Vico cages with Elite Fly bottles are fitted to each bike, save for when the bike comes with aero bottle cages as standard such as the ENVE Melee V2. This is because those are included parts of a bike, and people are unlikely to remove them (in favour of something nominally worse) so it is worth testing them as part of the entire system.

We have done a piece about the impacts of round bottles versus aero bottles if you want some homework.

We also still have our trusty Trek Emonda ALR control bike for the baseline testing. We test this at the start and end of each test day to ensure that conditions have remained consistent throughout the testing day. It hasn't changed since we started doing these tests, so allows us to ensure 2025 and 2026 testing days are comparable.

The results

Bike only

You can see here that the Look performs far better than our Emonda, and close to the Factor ONE. Look does state that the bike shaves 15 watts off the performance of the previous generation at 50kph, while performance across -15˚ to 15˚ Yaw was also an important part of development.

The Blade is actually closer to the performance of the Factor at the more extreme Yaw angles. Often more bladed tube shapes can perform well here acting as a sail, but only to the point at which they stall. Round tubes, like the Emoda, struggle here.

Total drag for the Look 795 Blade RS was 35.42 watts faster than the Emonda baseline. More impressively, it was a massive 11.3 watts faster than the previous generation 795 that we tested previously.

It also places it just shy of 5 watts behind the Factor ONE in first place for our bike-only testing.

With rider

When we add a rider to the equation, essential for the real world, performance is relatively better, with the Look actually beating the Factor at the more extreme yaw angles.

These are more prevalent at lower speeds, blustery conditions, and when riding in a bunch, so the bike seems well primed to perform well in more real world conditions.

However, we can see that the 2026 testing conditions were slightly faster than the 2025 based on the Emonda baseline testing, so although the Look performs well, it may be a watt or so slower than our measures when compared to previous test bikes.

With a rider present, the Look jumps up the table comfortably into the top quarter. 22.9 watts faster than the Emoda and just under 5 watts behind the Cervélo S5 at the top.

It's worth caveating that with a rider, not only is the error margin greater, meaning the bike could be anywhere from 3rd to near last, but the differences between frames are also smaller. The fact is that a rider makes up most of the drag, while large moving legs disrupt that smooth airflow massively.

This is why a clean front end and trailing edge can really help in real world aero performance, as well as deeper section wheels. It helps reduce the drag at the front of the bike, while also sometimes helping in smoothing the airflow coming off the back of the rider.

Control wheels

Interestingly, when we add the control wheels to the equation, the Look suffers badly, dropping down the table and 7.09w behind the Factor ONE and 2.72w slower than with the standard wheels.

This is likely due to the bike being tested initially with the Scope Artech 6 wheelset, which is deeper than our ENVE 4.5 control wheelset and a very sold aero performer as we have tested ourselves.

An intriguing aside, the Argon 18 Nitrogen Pro also came with the same wheels (albeit it modified versions to better suit the frame), yet it suffered less when we switched to the ENVE wheels. It looks like the Look does perform exceptionally well with those Scope Artechs.

This may look damning for the Look, but it's worth bearing in mind that the bike performed relatively better with a rider present than just the frame-only, which is how we tested the control wheels.

Even taking the same penalty of switching the wheels and applying this directly to the rider-on tests, the Blade 795 RS remains in the mid-table cluster which includes the likes of the 2026 Cannondale SuperSix Lab71 and aero focussed Van Rysel RCR-F.

The conclusions

Look designed this bike to be fast in the real world, with bottles mounted and a rider present. Given that the 795 Blade RS performed relatively better with a rider on the bike, we can say that to that end Look has done a very good job. It has also eclipsed the aero performance of the previous generation bike as a frame-only and rider-on model which is mightily impressive given the visually limited differences.

Some of the aero performance is clearly from being tested with a class-leading set of deep section 60mm wheels versus some bikes that were tested with 40mm options. However, even with that accounted for, it's a solidly performing bike.

A race-ready weight of 7kg claimed is also impressive and up there with all-rounder aero bikes that don't fully sacrifice light weight. My favourite addition to this bike though is the handlebar system.

On the face of it, it looks like a one-piece bar and stem, but the reality is that it is a very smooth and clean two-piece system. Given that many one-piece systems can cost in excess of £500 and be a pain to switch, this two-piece system offers easily adjustability to change reach and bar width.

The reason this is so helpful is that, as our tests have shown, the rider makes up the largest proportion of drag in the full bike and rider equation. Having the option to adjust the geometry more to accommodate a more aerodynamic position that can be sustained for a ride is going to offer a far larger potential aero gain than the small differences between frames.

Amflow carries no legacy pedigree in the mountain bike world. Until mid-2024, the brand was virtually unheard of outside China. Formed under the umbrella of drone titan DJI to showcase its proprietary Avinox electric drive system, industry lore has it that Amflow was born only after established mountain bike brands turned down DJI’s motor partnership.

True or not, Amflow has bypassed the usual apprenticeship: it is already setting the benchmark the rest of the industry is scrambling to match. But does its PX Carbon Pro offer genuine trail dynamics, or is it merely an exercise in raw wattage?

What is now clear to me and many others is that Amflow is now one of the most desirable e-bike brands, thanks to its combination of power and performance. It now represents the industry standard that every other bike brand is playing catch-up to. But does this bike represent more than just the best watts-to-cash ratio of anything going? And can it match the established brands for ride feel and sheer joy?

Design and aesthetics

The original Amflow (launched in 2024) was arguably a more radical step forward for e-bike design, introducing 1,000W of peak power and 120Nm of torque. The latest Amflow bike uses a new Avinox M2S Drive Unit that generates 150Nm of max torque (130Nm nominal) and 1,500W of peak power, which is unmatched by anything from Specialized, Bosch, Shimano, Bafang, Mahle, Fazua, Yamaha or Brose. In short – everyone else.

The Amflow range comprises three new models, all powered by the same DJI Avinox Drive System.

The PL weighs a claimed 19.2kg with a 2.27 kg carbon frame, 105 Nm continuous torque (120 Nm Boost), and 600Wh or 800Wh removable battery options. The PR is burlier, with heavier-duty FOX AWL HD/Float X suspension, SRAM Eagle Transmission, and Magura or Tektro brakes.

The range-topping PX I'm reviewing here has 150 Nm of torque, adjustable geometry (including chainstay lengths and head angles), a non-removable 700Wh battery, and SRAM X0 Eagle components.

Components and build

You’ve probably heard plenty about the motor already, but it’s pivotal to understanding this bike and I can’t move on without filling in a few more details.

The Avinox M2S Drive Unit is almost exactly the same size as the M1 from the previous generation bike, which only makes the increased power claims more impressive still. Amflow says it’s also quieter than the old motor, while the 700Wh fixed internal battery has greater energy density and will outperform the older 800Wh version of old.

Fitting a 700Wh non-removable battery might seem like Amflow has shot itself in the foot by not giving riders the option to fit their desired battery size or swap out batteries for big ride days, but it worked for me. Without it, the extra complexity of a removable battery would have made the svelte downtube bigger - which not only looks ugly, but actually gets in the way on some bikes, reducing space for water bottles, gear, suspension components and even your knees.

I’d also argue you’ll never need a second battery on this bike. There’s no incentive to swap out the new 700Wh version for an older-designed 600Wh battery that saves just a few hundred grams. But more importantly, the fast charger took my flat battery from empty to full in around 90 minutes, so you could conceivably top it up at your lunch spot or from a mobile power bank.

While the Amflow name is relatively new, the four-bar linkage (Horst pivot) suspension design, with its telltale linkage on the chainstay, and general frame layout most certainly are not. It’s strikingly similar to bikes like the latest Specialized Stumpjumper Gen 3, YT Capra, Megamo Reason and many more bikes. It’s a sensible choice - long proven, easy for engineers to tune the suspension performance, and it leaves plenty of space around the bottom bracket and uninterrupted downtube for a big battery.

It uses a carbon fibre frame that Amflow says has 40 different geometry configurations in total, something we’ve seen before on bikes like the Stumpjumper. It has a choice of two bottom bracket heights, five head angles, and four chainstay lengths. You can run the bike with 29in front and rear, or as amixed wheel mullet using a 27.5in at the back. This adds complexity for Amflow, but it takes away any last-minute buying jitters about which wheel size to opt for.

This is the flagship bike for Amflow, and uses Fox Factory suspension components. It has a 160mm 36 fork with a GRIP X2 damper providing four-way high/low-speed compression and rebound adjustments, and a 210×55mm Float X shock with low-speed compression and rebound tuning.

That’s a lot more complexity than most of us need, but it means you can tinker and learn as you go. Using the smaller 36mm stanchioned fork with 160mm travel, and generating just 150mm travel through the rear wheel proves Amflow has done its research and will appeal to the majority of mountain bikers.

It has a wireless SRAM X0 Eagle Transmission setup, consisting of an X0 derailleur, XS-1295 10–52T cassette, X0 Flattop chain, an AXS Pod Rocker controller, and a 38T SRAM Direct Mount chainring on Avinox SL cranks (155mm on M/L, 160mm on XL/XXL). The rear derailleur is powered directly from the main e-bike battery via an internal Avinox power cable.

Four-piston Magura Gustav Pro hydraulic disc brakes paired with thick 2.5mm, 203mm Magura Sensor rotors front and rear. The bike rolls on an Amflow XMC-30 carbon mullet wheelset (29″ front with a 28H hub; 27.5″ rear with a 32H XD freehub) laced with SAPIM E-Light spokes. These are fitted with radial-carcass Schwalbe tyres: a 29×2.5″ Magic Mary Radial in Ultra Soft compound up front and a 27.5×2.5″ Albert Radial in Addix Soft compound at the rear.

Performance

I first rode an e-bike at Copper Mountain, Colorado, in 2013 and spent most of the ride giggling uncontrollably as I whined and wheelied past bemused riders. I then spent the next 10 years enjoying e-bikes in a more sombre, jaded journalist way. But I’m right back in 2013 with the Amflow, it’s a huge leap forward even from bikes with more than 100Nm of torque.

There are five power modes to choose from, and a boost button that will temporarily raise the torque to 150Nm for 30 seconds. There’s no limit to the number of times you can press this during a ride, except the ultimate limiting factor of the battery capacity and range. More on that in a minute.

I spent time in all five modes, and they’re genuinely useful. Set the power low enough and you can ride this e-bike with friends on naturally aspirated bikes… and really tedious a time you will have. I finished a ride like this recently, and proceeded to complete a second powered ride afterwards. If it sounds like I’m antisocial, it’s more that I can’t leave 700Wh of battery power burning a hole in my bike.

Set the power high enough and you’ve got the jump on everything you’re legally allowed to ride on a mountain bike. It will pick its way up the steepest of climbs, and on occasion I’ve used it to winch me straight back up the fall line tracks I’ve just descended… just because I can. And because it’s often the quickest way back up to the top.

Traditional e-bikes rely on frame-and-spoke magnets recording a single data point per revolution of the wheel. The Avinox system pairs with Magura’s Sensor rotor using an optical pick-up that measures 42 pulses per revolution. The resulting traction control is uncanny: instead of breaking traction and tearing up soft trails or scrabbling in the dust, the motor micro-modulates power delivery the instant wheel-slip is detected. Combined with a balanced front-end stack that prevents the front wheel from wandering, you can winch up technical, fall-line singletrack that would defeat almost any other machine.

The riding position suits this setup. There’s a 40mm high riser bar that shifts rider weight further backwards, but it’s not pronounced enough to stop me weighting the front wheel even when the winch uphill seemed impossibly vertiginous. I’m talking about those trails that have you hugging pressing yourself against the stem, as the front wheel hovers dangerously just a few inches from the ground.

As much as I enjoy climbing on the Amflow (and I really do, because it’s so easy and natural), I’m more interested in the descents. The motor cuts out at 25kph, like on any (UK and Euro) legal e-bike, but I’d hazard that most of us are under this threshold for most of the time when descending. It’s often either too steep or too tight. And it’s here I really noticed the beautiful way the DJI motor delivers its power - there’s a huge groundswell of support, but it’s never snatchy or unsettling, and it fires you out of a corner when you mess it up, or up a little rise in the trail to keep your speed up. It’s a lovely way to ride, keeping the bike fast and fluid, and a sensation I’ve honestly not had on any other e-bike.

Fox’s 36 Factory fork with the GRIP X2 damper strikes a sound balance between tracking and compliance, something I love on home trails in Surrey or rocky tech at BikePark Wales. I think the Amflow could easily justify the 38mm chassis of a Fox 38, the 36 saves a few hundred grams, and only fully formed enduro riders will miss the extra stiffness of a 38. Out back, I found that the Float X shock was supple in its initial stroke with a reassuring ramp-up through the mid-stroke. This let me run slightly deeper sag in the low BB setting without suffering harsh bottom-outs on squared-off square edges and drops.

It offers incredible grip and plenty of high-speed support to keep the bike nice and flat on janky stuff, but I did have to work hard to set it up perfectly, systematically winding on damping until I found the sweet spot. I think the Amflow could easily take a bigger 38 fork, which wouldn’t be out of place on a bike with enough stiffness like this one, but it adds weight, which is something Amflow has been keen to avoid on this bike, with its smaller 700wh battery and carbon bar and wheels.

The rear suspension is very good indeed. I found it beautifully supple when you’re charging over rough ground and feeling the trail under your wheels fly past, with the shock free and active and rear wheel eager to move out of the way of small rocks and roots. It’s also controlled and supportive when it’s time to slow it down and pick through rocks or over big roots, and I didn't have a harsh bottom out on drops or landings.

There’s a lot of support when you get to the mid-stroke, and that let me run more sag and drop the already-low BB down even further to improve the bike’s stability and cornering aplomb. The fantastically well-damped Schwalbe Radial tyres add to the grip and control this generates, taking some of the pressure off the bike’s suspension, and my hands. I didn’t like the Trail version of the Schwalbes on a previous bike, but the Gravity casing and Ultra Soft compound is probably the best tyre I’ve ridden in a long time.

It’s not just a low bike, though; it’s also slack (both the head angle and seat angle), and long. I kept the bike in its standard headset angle, because it’s still plenty slack enough even for proper enduro riding, and plonked the bike into its low BB setting for stability. For my kind of riding, the bike felt best with the longest chainstay setting, which seemed to calm the bike down on steeper trails. In the shortest setting, the rear wheel could break loose too readily.

Value

This bike costs more than my car and my personal e-bike combined, and I would struggle to justify buying it. Price is subjective, though, and I think this is an astonishing machine for those who can drop nine grand on a mountain bike. The spec is fantastic - from Amflow’s own carbon wheels to the Fox Factory suspension - while the adjustable-geometry frame and ride feel show that Amflow have done their homework. And then there’s the motor, which other brands can’t touch right now.

That said, you can get a lot of the performance and most of the power from bikes lower in the Amflow range, or indeed other brands’ bikes using the M2S motor. When MBR tested the entry-level original Amflow PL Carbon, Alan Muldoon said the basic in-line Fox shock was better than the Float X piggyback shock on the Pro model. I’ve yet to ride the entry-level, second-gen bike, but if they’ve got the tune right, there’s every chance it could pull off the same trick.

Verdict

The Amflow has received so much praise online and on the socials that I wanted to hate it. But I absolutely fell in love with this bike. I’ve ridden scores of e-MTBs over the years and this one feels like nothing else. It’s so fast on singletrack and everything just short of full-on enduro tracks, where you come up against the inevitable - the end of its travel.

It reminds me of Whyte’s brilliant E-Lyte Evo. It’s comfortable and compliant in the same way, and absolutely razor sharp when cornering thanks to its brilliantly supportive suspension and geometry that means it can be whatever you want it to be.

It has a lot more power than the E-Lyte, though, much greater battery capacity, but the same light weight. And it’s here that the Amflow really makes the difference for me and noses ahead of other e-bikes: It’s stupidly good fun, easy to ride and move around, and forgives you when you mess up.

I said earlier the Amflow PX Carbon Pro is utterly soulless, and I love it for that. I have no idea who’s behind the DJI engineering, I don’t know where the bikes were designed and engineered, and which hills inspired their minutiae of design. Amflow just lets the power and performance do the talking.

We first saw the new Argon 18 Nitrogen Pro back in August 2025 for a wind tunnel test when we had a paintless, lacquerless, menacing looking thing that seemed fresh off the factory floor. It was somewhat overshadowed that day by us also having a prototype version of the Factor ONE in the tunnel (yes, we were very smug), but nevertheless it caused enough of a stir at the time and hence to have at least piqued my interest.

Fastforward a year, and in order to review it properly, I took it on an extended trip home to Cornwall to see my family, where I sniffed out some familiar roads to calm my soul on the clifftops, and a few fresh sections to hunt out rare flat roads, where it does tend to shine. It is a fabulous place to ride, but absolutely murderous if you want an easy day out.

Reviewing it as I did straight after hopping off the fabulous Look 795 Blade RS - to be published in the coming days - left it with a tough act to follow, and one it didn’t quite manage to live up to. It certainly isn’t without merit though, and while I don’t necessarily think it’s quite up there with the absolute cream of the best road bikes (or indeed the best aero road bikes), it is certainly a good bicycle, and may well suit your tastes more than it does mine. Ultimately the front end felt a little languid for my tastes, but more presingly the combination of a slack-ish seat tube angle and a 20mm setback seat post stuck me in what felt like a rather old school position out of step with the modern era.

Design and aesthetics

As always, let's tackle the subjective subject of how the thing looks first; I’m a fan. It manages to toe the line of looking hyper-modern without going absolutely bananas like the Factor ONE, with clear cues from TT bike design. Those hefty, extremely dropped seat stays would be just at home on the brand’s triathlon machines. Ridley also helped everyone out by normalising massive headtubes with the Noah Fast 3.0, something the Nitrogen Pro has up front to go with a relatively wide-set fork that’ll handle 34mm as measured tyres, which is a capacity matched at the back end.

While it can handle a 34 it comes with 30c Vittoria Corsa Pros on Scope Artech 6.A wheels, but not the standard set that I had the pleasure of riding on the Look Blade; these are a collaboration with Scope and Atten, Argon’s in-house componentry brand, and the extremely fast wheels have been reshaped to better suit the 30mm tyres and to better interact with the frameset, all while keeping the Scope hubs and that eye-catching fish scale texture. In reality they feel no different to the standard Artechs, but it is heartening to know they’ve at least been optimised to this machine in particular.

Back up front and you get the same CHB-01 cockpit as is found on the brand’s Anti Matter aero gravel bike that my colleague Tom loved so much. This you can spec when you buy it in either a 36cm or a 38cm width, and with a choice of stem lengths from 80-130mm at no extra charge.

What you cannot do is spec a zero offset seatpost, which is something I believe you should not only be able to do but also something you should do. I’ll go into the why in a sec, but if you do want to do this it’ll cost you a cool £225.

Geometrically I do want to start at the back end. The seat post is pretty set back; 1 full degree slacker than the Look Blade. This is compounded by having a full 20mm setback seatpost, rather than a 13mm on the Look. It is the same as on a Tarmac however, though again with a less severe seatpost setback from Specialized.

Without boring you too much with maths, for my saddle height a 1 degree change in seat tube angle (STA) equates to roughly 13mm of increased saddle setback. Add in the 7mm differential in the seat posts and the Argon puts me a full 20mm further behind the BB; potentially manageable if you run your saddle in the middle of the rails but as someone who has theirs slammed forwards I would have needed a costly swap.

This is all compared to somewhat ‘normal’ geometry bikes. The seat tube angle is 1.5 degrees slacker than a progressive Ridley Noah, and a full three degrees slacker than the Factor ONE, though these are a lot more radical and not everyday machines.

Before I jump two-footed into the aerodynamics, it’s worth remembering the Nitrogen comes in two guises; the Pro, which I have with a lighter, stiffer carbon layup and more pricey build options, and the standard model with lower tier components and carbon, but ultimately the same aerodynamic shape.

With a rider on, at the time of testing it proved to be reasonably fast. Since then, though, we have been fortunate enough to test a load of other new releases, and it isn’t quite as fast as many of them, now sitting around ⅔ of the way down our power rankings of road bikes. While you should obviously read all of our wind tunnel content, and the one pertaining to the test in which the Nitrogen Pro was included, it’s worth bearing in mind that while ‘bottom third’ sounds bad, it is only shipping 7.5 watts to a Cervélo S5 in reality. If you need every watt then this may be of concern to you, but it’s perfectly plausible you could make this up elsewhere, though you could also make up that deficit elsewhere and have a faster bike.

Performance

It’s easy to perhaps look at ‘bottom third in the wind tunnel rankings’ and conclude that this is a slow bike, but it isn’t really. Seven and a half watts is measurable, though only barely perceptible, and on the flats the Nitrogen Pro feels very much at home once you settle into a decent position, though as with so much of the performance of the machine the thing that seems to be holding it back is mostly down to the position it puts you in.

Having a relatively slack seat tube angle combined with a 20mm setback post means you do feel like you’re hanging off the back of the bike. On the flats, while the bike is certainly aero enough, it lacks that feeling of efficiency that comes with being more over the front of the bike. My hips felt impinged, and more than anything else it just felt quite old school.

On the flat it lacked that feeling of biomechanical efficiency (though it felt aerodynamically so), and on the climbs where your weight is naturally going to be further back I felt I had to spend more time on the tops than in the hoods just because that’s where my weight fell. When out of the saddle, either on climbs or in a sprint, these problems dissipated immediately, but that isn’t a sustainable solution. A shorter stem may have helped a touch, but only in terms of the overall reach and not what’s going on at the hips. Basically it needs a zero offset seatpost, and I think you should factor it into the cost of the machine.

I don’t think I’m alone; I did a basic straw poll (Instagram stalk) of Argon sponsored athletes. Chris Hall, Rasmus Bøgh Wallin, Linus Østdal, and the riders from Team Cranks appear to be on zero setback posts. It isn’t exclusive, and some other athletes weren’t, but from what I can see from a brief search it seems the majority are opting for the option to get them over the front of the bike.

Up front I found the fact my weight was off the back more than I’d like, combined with a slacker head tube angle (0.8º slacker than Tarmac, for example) meant the front end felt a little more languid and slow than I’d like, particularly at slow speeds. Moreover, being over the back means less weight over the front wheel, meaning reduced front end grip. This is, again, solvable with a costly seatpost swap, though only to a point; the head angle ain’t going to change. That being said, if you want a road bike that errs towards stability rather than waspish agility then this could well be a machine for you. On the twisty lanes of Cornwall I often found myself wishing I was on something a little more reactive, but on the flip side if you relish longer, steadier efforts on flat or rolling terrain (once you lock the position in) I think this would be a very decent machine.

At 7.5kg in this spec it’s not a superlight hillclimb machine but there’s a lot of carbon in the frame, forks and in those deep Scope wheels. It doesn’t have the immediacy of acceleration on steeper gradients that you get with bikes around the UCI weight limit (or below), but it’s also not absolutely leaden either. Certainly one more for fast, rolling terrain but if anyone tells me they can’t bear to ride a 7.5kg machine in the mountains I will tell them to go and touch some grass.

Sprints… now we’re talking. That super-compact rear triangle with large, boxy stays in combination with a bottom bracket shell that’s tall enough to sit proud of the outer front chainring just gobble up high wattage efforts and there’s no concerning play in the cockpit at all. I’d have like the tops to sweep forward a little sooner; the right angle transition is quite sharp and can sometimes leave your forearms contacting the bars when you're sprinting in the drops, particularly uphill, but it’s a minor quibble, and not something I cared too much about while bagging a few local, extremely low hanging ego-massaging KOMs.

Value

The Nitrogen Pro, in this spec at least, is a funny old beast from a value perspective and is a little like the Force-equipped Factor Elara I reviewed recently. Everything besides the groupset is top drawer and as you would get on the best-of-the-best model, so you can look at it two ways: either you’re getting basically the performance of a £12,500 bike for £9,500 ($10,499), where a saving of three thousand pounds to Dura-Ace is significant, or you can look at it as £9.5k being a lot for an Ultegra-spec bike. An Ultegra Specialized Tarmac (not the S-Works, which this ‘Pro’ Nitrogen is more akin to) is £3.5k cheaper, but has less fizzy wheels, a separate cockpit, and it doesn’t say S-Works on the downtube.

Personally I actually like this new trend of top tier bikes but with a downrated groupset. Aside from weight, Ultegra is basically indistinguishable from Dura-Ace and Force is essentially the same as Red so it saves a huge wad of cash for a negligible performance hit.

Setback seatpost aside, as this is a problem that I think can be alleviated at a small cost, I think it accounts for itself reasonably well. Extremely fast wheels tuned to the frame and tyres, which themselves are a modern 30c width and not a cheaper option to bring the price down. A decent cockpit, and a stiff package that is pretty aerodynamic in the grand scheme of things, even if it isn’t world beating.

Verdict

As tested I think there’s a lot to be positive about with the Argon 18 Nitrogen Pro. It’s stiff, an excellent sprinter, and while the handling isn’t lively enough for my liking it is certainly acceptable if you prefer something a little more stable and forgiving rather than hair raising and spicy. I think it’s a bike that, with a change of seatpost that I think is more of a necessity than an option despite the added cost, would be a fine mile munching fast bike for rolling and flat terrain.

I think if you’re looking for something of a do-it-all fast bike then you will perhaps have a better time with something with more of an all-rounder feel.

UPDATE

Following publication of this review, based on feedback, Argon 18 is planning on swapping the 20mm setback for an inline post as the stock option for the Nitrogen Pro for 2027.

The Merida Reacto One is a bike that confuses me. It sort of proves you can't always judge a book by its cover. But then again, it sort of proves you can.

Let me explain.

With its narrow handlebars, one-by (Classified-equipped) groupset, deep wheels and aero tubes, it looks as if it was designed to 'win' the wind tunnel tests performed by ourselves and other media.

It should have been a prime candidate for the top spot in our aero bike wind tunnel testing, but it fell remarkably short of the current leaders, Factor's One and Cervélo's S5, landing a disappointing result; the details of which are below.

It was better than the older Reacto we tested in 2025, but despite being a full-house bingo card of go-faster tricks that make it UCI-illegal and are undoubtedly an unfair advantage compared to other bikes, it barely scraped the top 10.

But then when I climbed aboard it and rode it in earnest, I liked almost everything about it. The position was great, the handling was superb, it was plenty responsive under power, and it was decently comfortable.

The bike explained

The Merida Reacto One is the black sheep in the wider Reacto range. All of the other Reacto Models are 'normal' in that they come with two-by groupsets from Shimano or SRAM, and handlebars that are UCI-legal in their width.

The One – not to be confused with the Factor One (or even the Trek Mad(One)) – is a showcase of what the product team can create when they're let a little loose.

The Taiwanese brand partnered with some revered European brands to kit the bike out with the set menu from the aero playbook. DT Swiss supplied its ARC 1100 Dicut 65mm deep wheels, Continental supplied the Aero 111 front tyre, and Classified chipped in its Powershift rear-hub gear system, which in turn meant Rotor could supply a 1x aero chainring alongside its InSpider power meter chainset.

Perhaps most pertinent of all, though, is that Vision supplied a super-narrow, special edition Merida Team CW 1P cockpit that measured a grand total of just 22.5cm between the Shimano Dura-Ace hoods. And no, I've not got the hoods set up tilted inwards like a 2022 WorldTour pro.

It's an off-the-shelf version of what I think I'd build for the type of crit racing that suits me best – flat, fast and tightly packed, rather than hilly or too punchy. Deep wheels, one-by groupset, big chainring, small cassette, narrow bars and aero frame. The Classified groupset is a nice touch, and one that means you get the aerodynamics of one-by without compromising on gear range or steps, meaning you can actually live with it and ride it at the weekend without messing about with swapping wheels or cassettes around. I like it. It's well thought out.

Notably, and this perhaps goes some way to explain why it didn't storm to victory in our wind tunnel test, that narrow cockpit is mainly achieved through a massive flare from the tops to the drops, as the outside-to-outside measurement down there is actually 42cm.

When we test in the wind tunnel, we do so with our hands in the drops, meaning the narrow bars didn't really have an opportunity to shine. If I'd performed the same test in more of an aero position with hands on the hoods, horizontal forearms and elbows bent to 90°, the narrowness would have probably made a difference.

It would have also been less comparable to other bikes and thus, less of a fair test.

Also, I can't hold that position for more than a few minutes at a time, and I'm going to bet that not many others can either. On the flip side, it only takes a few minutes at a time to make the difference in a race sometimes, so you can spin it that way if you prefer.

Elsewhere, the bike promises 32mm tyre clearance front and rear. The 29mm Aero 111 tyre up front measured at exactly 29mm on the DT Swiss wheels, and the clearance measured amply at 12mm either side, so you could easily go wider if you wanted.

At the rear, the 30mm GP5000 S TR tyre measured at 31mm, with 6mm of room to spare on either side according to our calipers, so you could probably get away with a little more than claimed, but not much. Perhaps 34mm if you're in need of cobble-smoothing comfort.

And while I'm on the subject of measuring, the Reacto One tipped our scales at a not-bad-but-not-excellent 7.73kg (weighed without pedals, computer mount, or bottle cages).

Wind tunnel performance

Okay, I've dallied long enough. Time to get stuck into the stuff you're really here for.

As with all our wind tunnel tests, we took the Reacto to the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub, tested it back-to-back against our baseline bike (as well as a handful of other competitors on the same day), to measure how aerodynamic it is. Using its comparison against that baseline bike, which remains unchanged between tests, we can also measure it against bikes we've tested in years gone by.

We test every bike in three separate setups: the bike on its own first, then the bike with a rider, then finally we swap in a 'control' wheelset to isolate the differences found in the frame/fork and cockpit.

We test each of these setups across seven distinct wind angles – -15°, -10°, -5°, 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° – for a total of 21 different measurements.

And we test at a wind speed of 40km/h, for either 15 or 30 seconds per measurement, depending on whether it's with or without a rider.

Everything that can be controlled remains unchanged between tests, including the tyres, the bottles, the clothing and so on, and we do our best to ensure the bike setup and rider position are the same across all tests, no matter what bike is being tested.

Starting with the raw measurements for the two tests without a rider. This doesn't tell us too much, aside from that the DT Swiss Wheels tested slightly faster than our Enve SES 4.5 control wheels, especially at higher yaw angles. Hardly a surprise given the depth difference.

From here, as we do with all our tests, I've run some calculations and applied weightings to land on an average that's relevant to real world conditions. From here, we can then see how many watts the Reacto One saves against our baseline.

As suggested at the top of this review, I'm pretty disappointed to see it down in 11th place. Don't get me wrong, that's still a reasonable result and one that puts aero bikes like the Giant Propel, Canyon Aeroad and X-Lab AD9 to shame, not to mention its own predecessor, but I was expecting more for a bike that pulled out all the aero tricks.

The Reacto One is exactly four watts behind the Factor One, and very much on par with the new Enve Melee v2, which is much more of an all-rounder in its design.

Next up, things don't really get any better when we swap in our control wheels…

We only introduced the control wheel test in 2025, so some of the older bikes are missing, but the Reacto is still mid-table, approximately five watts behind the Factor One. The Cannondale SuperSix even climbs ahead, which is another all-rounder.

We're splitting hairs, of course; it's still 35 watts better than our baseline bike, but I can't help but feel disappointed with its result.

Next up, let's check what happens when we chuck a rider on the bike.

At first glance, things start to look a little rosier here. At certain wind angles, the Merida is actually faster than the Factor One, which remains our benchmark (even though the Cervelo S5 snuck ahead by a fraction once the weightings had been applied).

But this only really happens at the wider yaw angles, which we know aren't seen anywhere near as commonly in the real world. Therefore, when we get to the averaged result, the rankings are as follows.

The big caveat to this data is that our error margin is bigger than many of the differences between the bikes, so the Reacto could lay claim to a victory, but it could also be right near the bottom of the table.

But taking the results as they come, the Reacto One is once again around five watts behind the leaders, in 10th place.

When it first arrived at CN HQ, I was reluctant to test the Reacto in our wind tunnel test at all. Clearly it's a bike designed to be aero, and part of me feared it would win the test and I'd forever have to caveat that "of course it won, it was specced with 22cm handlebars." But when it came to measuring up, the bar width at the drops was no narrower than our baseline bike. 42cm outside-to-outside.

The 1x groupset is still a bit sneaky, but Merida does sell the bike like this, so why should I leave it off the test? Factor was radical and progressive when designing the ONE, and we tested that. Merida kept things relatively sane when designing the Reacto frame, but then applied that progressive mindset to the spec. Two routes to a similar end goal, really.

If the Reacto One stormed to victory, I would be caveating this write-up heavily, saying you could also just fit a 1x groupset or narrow bars to any other bike, so the test was unfair and so on.

And, well, you can, and that's pretty damning for Merida. Despite having a significant spec advantage, the Reacto still didn't challenge the top spots.

But – and this is a very large but – I don't care.

Real riding experience

As it happens, I went from reviewing the Factor One straight onto the Merida, and while I appreciate I'm probably a bit boring for saying this, I'd take the Merida almost every time.

Objectively, by a true performance yardstick, the Factor does most things better, particularly power transfer, sprinting, aerodynamics, steering directness, and holding pace when tanking along flat ground. But, subjectively, I still preferred riding the Reacto. I had a much nicer time on it every time I rode it, and whatever performance I was probably giving away didn't really feel worth stressing about.

Power transfer felt plenty enough, albeit this is what stood out the most when comparing the two, mainly because it's so insanely good on the Factor. The narrow cockpit was easy to get used to, despite my inability to hold an aero-hoods position for more than a few minutes. The comfort through the bars made it a much better bike to ride, so I was more confident on descents, and I was able to ride for longer without feeling beat up. I couldn't go more than an hour without aches and pains on the Factor, but I did multiple four-hour rides on the Merida without issue.

This isn't a head-to-head between just two bikes, but even compared to other bikes I've ridden lately, which includes the Tarmac SL9, the Merida is the one I've enjoyed most. It strikes a solid balance between being race-ready, something you can ride to the cafe at the weekend, and something you can do your intervals on after work in the evenings.

It wasn't completely without fault, though. For one, I had a terrible time with the Aero 111 tyre up front, puncturing three times in a single ride and five times overall in my two months of testing. It's hard to say whether that's due to the narrowness of the DT Swiss wheels, the fragility of a TT tyre, or just a coincidental streak of bad luck.

I also struggled to get on with the Classified Powershift drivetrain, which wasn't running as smoothly as I'd experienced before. The shift itself is instant, but there's still a small delay after you press the shift button. I found that sometimes it didn't register the click, and during that small delay, there's no feedback to confirm whether it's registered. So it was a case of click, wait, nothing, click again, shift! It's a first-world problem, but it was annoying no less.

The one problem I can actually attribute to Merida, though, was that the plastic cap that sits over the steerer tube and cockpit bolts didn't fit properly. On one fateful trip over a cattle grid (aka Texas gates for those outside the UK), it came off and went on a little journey to the wrong side of the road, where it was duly run over by a passing car. I retrieved it, but you'll see how bent it is in the photos.

And finally, to round off the negatives, the little metal grills that Merida insists on putting over its brake calipers are, to put it nicely, the devil. I have scars on my left ankle from repeatedly catching it. The best thing about them is that they're removable, and should be the first thing you do if you buy this bike. Sorry to the Merida designers reading this, but in your defence, it's a small thing to find so irksome, so the rest of the bike must be pretty good.

Value

At £9,500, for a bike with a progressive top-spec build, competitive (albeit not quite leading) aero performance, and a reasonable weight, I don't think you can complain too much, given the price of the aforementioned competitors.

Here in the UK, it's £2,499 cheaper than a top-spec S-Works Tarmac SL9 - currently £11,999. Or £2,699 less than the Factor ONE (£12,199).

It's still an inordinate amount of money to spend on a bike, but if you're in the market for a top-tier bike, it's a pretty good option as long as you're not going to want to upgrade your wheels anytime soon, as the Classified Powershift hub locks you into using the DT Swiss ones specced.

It's not the cheapest in its class, though. For a comparison in the other direction, you can get a Canyon Aeroad CFR with Dura-Ace and very similar DT Swiss wheels (the same but 55mm instead of 65mm) for £1000 less. Having not ridden the latest Aeroad, I can't comment on a direct comparison, but it is a more 'normal' build with UCI-legal bars.

Conclusions

Overall, I really liked the Reacto One. I like that a brand known for being safe, good value – dare I say boring? – has the wherewithal and panache to sell a bike with a UCI-illegal 22cm handlebar, rather than just selling it as a frameset and forcing people to make their own fun.

And in execution, I think it has pulled it off. It's a bike that sits in a nice sweet spot between everyday liveable, race-day ready, and a little bit mad.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm seeing a bike that's otherwise a little underwhelming through rose-tinted glasses because of its aero-ification and the excitement factor that it brings. It's hard to say whether I'd have enjoyed riding the 10K or Pro models, with their more common specs, as much as I did this.

But I think sometimes the objective comparison is allowed to give way to the subjective opinion. Aerodynamically, the results are okay. Top ten, not bad. Nothing to write home about, but the Merida Reacto One is a good bike.

The two parties have announced a three-year partnership which will run from 2027 through to 2029.

In an Instagram announcement, they spoke of a 'strategic partnership based on technological innovation.'

TotalEnergies raced on Enve bikes from 2024 to 2025, and has competed on Cube bikes this year.

This is the second bike sponsor announcement in recent weeks after Specialized and Soudal-Quick-Step parted ways after a long and successful partnership together. Incidentally, Total Energies raced on Specialized bikes prior to partnering with Enve.

The team also released a press release on its website containing a little more information. Pardus will become a 'material sponsor' for all of the team's squads, which include the UCI Pro Team and U19 and U23 squads.

This is a promising development for the French squad due to its continuing search for a replacement title sponsor.

Pardus bikes are raced by the Chinese National Team and were also used by Team Vini Fantini in 2025 at a high level in races like the UAE Tour.

The Total Energies teams will use the SPK EVO G4 and Robin EVO G3 road models, along with the Gomera Evo TT bike.

Those are models that may not be as familiar as those from more established brands, and Pardus represents another Chinese brand joining cycling's top flight. Although Total Energies is not a WorldTour team, they will be riding some of the world's biggest races on Pardus machines over the next three years.

"Working alongside the Chinese national team since the Rio Olympics, we have gained in-depth knowledge of the demands of elite competition and the expectations of riders.

"This partnership will be a fantastic opportunity to share our technical expertise throughout the season, continuously enhance our product ranges through interaction with athletes, and solidify Pardus' presence at the heart of European cycling culture," said Terry Gong, Deputy General Manager of Pardus.

The brand's aero model is the SPKG4 Evo (pictured below). This is the model we may well see the TotalEnergies riders racing on most of the time.

The third-generation Canyon Grail was released this September after being sighted earlier in the year at the Traka.

The Grail has been in the Canyon range since 2018 and is the brand's racier, performance-oriented model.

Gravel bikes designed for competition are becoming more aerodynamic, race-focused, and are getting bigger clearances; this latest update sees Canyon take the Grail down that path further still.

The new machine is more aero, lower, racier and now has 57mm tyre clearance. The previous Grail had 42mm clearance, so this is a big jump. That smaller clearance number was probably the key weak spot in the 2nd-gen bikes' armour as gravel machines progressed at pace.

Canyon said it took its time with this update, and wanted to keep the Grail feeling like a Grail. I can understand that; the previous bike was one of the best gravel bikes and was pretty much universally regarded as a strong all-rounder.

This time around, I have tested the CF SLX 8 AXS, the model I also tested last time, in the eye-catching 'Strawberry Shake' colourway. The price for this second-tier CF SLX model is $5,999 / £4,799 / €4,999.

Design and aesthetics

You can see the outgoing Grail up above and compare the visual differences, but let's cover what exactly has changed first.

Tyre clearance has really been boosted from 42mm up to 57mm, and that new number is a big talking point when it comes to the new Grail.

Canyon has achieved this by using a thin but solid section of driveside chainstay and by growing the rear chainstays by 10mm. Up front, a revised fork provides plenty of clearance. 57mm + 4mm either side in line with ISO guidelines.

The new frame is a little heavier; my Gen 2 CF SLX 8 weighed in at 8.2 kg out of the box. This time we were at 9kg on my scales. If you're a racer, the increased aero will probably make you faster, depending on speed, but as a general gravel bike for an everyday rider, I think the added weight at times makes the bike feel just a touch less nimble.

The frame has some deeper tube profiles and more aero overall shapes; you can read about Canyon's claims regarding aero performance in our Grail news piece.

The seat tube/seat post area is also very similar to the recently updated Canyon Endurace CF SLX road model.

On the aero topic, there's also a new, more aerodynamic seatpost, the SP0093 VCLS. Canyon says it offers 25% more vertical compliance than a rigid unit.

The front end is more aggressive; it's now 15mm lower, but Canyon is speccing shorter stems on models. Small to large bikes come with an 80mm stem as well as an adjustable 390-440cm bar. The stem has been pretty much ideal for me, but bigger riders or those wanting a long reach may want or need a longer front end.

On the geometry, the Grail has received some slight tweaks, but on paper things are very similar to the old bike. For a small, my size, the head tube angle of 71.5 degrees stays the same, and the seat tube angle steepens slightly, going from 73.5 to 73.9 degrees.

The chainstays have grown by 10mm, and the wheelbase is 5mm longer. The stack is 15mm lower, whilst the reach number is the same.

That stem is part of the adjustable CP0048 integrated handlebar with width-adjustable Control bar drops. You can buy alternate drops or handlebars, but you will have to pay extra to do it.

The CF SLX model also has full fender mounts, something the race-focused CFR model doesn't. If you choose to use the Canyon FAST Fender system, you won't be disappointed; it's very easy to use and provides excellent protection in bad weather. Don't forget you may need to come down in tyre size with them depending on what you are running.

Canyon has also produced some new frame storage bags for the bike in partnership with Cyclite; these are lightweight options and integrate neatly. They are available separately for $119.99 for the big bag, and $69.99 for the top tube option.

The CF SLX 8 arrived with a solid range of equipment. There's an excellent SRAM Force XPLR groupset with a left-hand power meter. Stock cranks are also 165mm in length, very on-trend.

The wheels are carbon fibre DT Swiss GRC 1400s, a hardy and aerodynamic option. They are wrapped in 45mm Schwalbe G One RS tyres. Some may criticise the decision not to fit a 50mm+ tyre from the off, but there is nothing wrong with the stock 45mm tyres.

Performance

I'm constantly impressed by just how capable a good gravel bike is these days. They can do so much, so well. The Grail CF SLX is no exception; it's performed well everywhere.

It goes fast on the flat and on smoother gravel and broken tarmac. I often leave the road behind on my to-go loop and enter a short descent into a long, straight gravel track; I get the Grail up to speed there, and it just eats the road up.

That lower front end helps a touch, but the bike doesn't feel aggressively low; it's a measured change. I like it.

The bike is stable at speed and under hard braking in the drops, and handles rough technical sections well. There's no doubt this is a hugely capable bike; I haven't found it wanting in any one area. The bar has been raised wholesale with modern gravel bikes; the differences are finer and more specific now, I find.

The Grail is undoubtedly more race-oriented; however, I don't find the CF SLX super stiff, and it doesn't feel quite as agile and, dare I say it, as fast as the Argon 18 Anti Matter I rode in the summer did.

It's a calmer experience with the Grail; it has not put a foot wrong on any terrain during my testing, but at times the ride feels a little muted.

Perhaps it's the capability of the overall package that just makes things feel calmer, or the longer chainstays, bigger rubber and slightly heavier wheelset (1600+ grams) on this model reducing some playfulness.

I started on the stock Schwalbe G One R 45mm tyres, then switched to big 2.2" Continental Dubnital tyres in their fastest version, and went back to the 45s, and I think I had more fun on the 45s at home riding solo.

The big tyres fit comfortably, and part of the reason for switching was to verify the bike's clearance myself. It's there, and the bike's proportions still look very normal. Canyon has executed it very well.

It's heartening to know that big clearance is there for when you need it, but a 45 or a 50mm tyre is still very capable, and the bike feels a little more nimble and exciting to ride, in my opinion. I'd maybe go big where needed if I was racing a gravel calendar, and run a 45 or 50mm tyre at home.

My standard advice now is to shop for a gravel bike with a SRAM XPLR 1x groupset if you are looking for a gravel bike. They are fantastic groupsets for off-road riding. I have no complaints about the drivetrain performance, and the brakes are fantastic for scrubbing off speed off-road.

At times my knees have scuffed the Cyclite top tube bag; I've found the bag material quite rough, sharp on the edges, even. It's my problem, but long term I'd probably need a different bag, or even no bag, to prevent knee grazing.

The strong speccing continues through the CF SLX 8 model; the drivetrain is excellent, and the wheel and tyres package is great; the Schwalbe G-One tyres are excellent all-rounders. The wheelset is a touch on the heavier side in its 50mm version; perhaps some lighter wheels may help boost the feeling of acceleration and nimbleness.

Aside from some rough bag material, the Grail has performed perfectly. No mechanical issues of any kind, which is always good.

Maintenance and servicing

We're heading into winter here in the UK, and my thoughts are already turning to winter maintenance. I've had to hose down a muddy Grail a few times already.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, the key maintenance area to watch here is the integrated handlebar and stem assembly. You can't remove the stem easily, so trapped water and dirt will stay inside the headset/head tube area. A full strip-down for replacements will be expensive. Look after it by minimising aggressive hosing, and consider a front fender in some conditions.

Elsewhere, I'd recommend staying on top of the seatpost clamp assembly, thru-axles, and AXS rear derailleur sleeve in general. There's also a press-fit bottom bracket, which shouldn't cause too much of a headache, really. Though, of course, creaks do arise sometimes.

Value

You're starting in a competitive place immediately with Canyon's direct pricing.

This bike costs $5,999 / £4,799 / €4,999 at RRP. The SRAM Force XPLR-equipped Factor Sarana I tested in the summer costs $2,500 more than this bike. Though you can spec your desired bar width and stem length at checkout with the Factor.

There's a solid spec with no gaps here, and any and all spare parts or hardware you might need are easily found on the Canyon site. The Grail range also has several cheaper bikes with this, and in my experience, Canyon bike specs are generally solid.

As ever with Canyon models, it would be nice to get the computer mount included with the bike, and you will, of course, need to buy any accesories you need separately, such as the frame storage bag, frame bags, or mudguards.

Verdict

The latest Canyon Grail is a massively capable bike that will handle pretty much whatever you throw at it; it's a tank.

Canyon has given it a thorough update and improved the areas that were seen as the weaknesses of the old bike, namely the conservative tyre clearance. Riders and racers alike can now go as large as they want depending on preference or the demands of a course, that's to say nothing of mud clearance.

As I said in my first ride piece, the Grail still largely feels like a Grail; performance and capability have increased. I'll hammer the point home: this is a massively capable gravel bike, but it isn't quite as lively as the previous bike.

Perhaps this is where gravel bikes are now heading; if you're a racer looking for the most capable aero race bike with big clearance, you can just get on and race, then step this way.

Who doesn't love a redemption arc? The old Look Blade was something of a brick in our wind tunnel testing; by some measures the slowest bike we have ever tested. The new one... not so much.

To find out how fast this WorldTour race machine is, and just as importantly to find out how it actually rides, you can watch Will's full video review below if you're a Cyclingnews subscriber. Early video access is just one of the perks you get, along with all of our other premium content.

If you're not already signed up then there's still time!

{kiosq_button:center}

Choosing a bike for a young child presents one fundamental dilemma. Given the rider in question will probably outgrow their new steed in a year or so, how much investment should you make in something with a shelf life of a year or two?

The problem is, these are formative years for budding young cyclists, and subjecting them to a heavy, clunky piece of kit may put them off riding for years. Investing in a bike they’ll love may well be worthwhile, but not everyone can afford to do that every other birthday. So what’s the answer?

Prevelo is a ten-year-old California-based brand that specialises in kids' bikes, and has built its reputation on getting the details on these just right. Their Alpha Two is its 16-inch all-rounder capable of tackling forest trails just as well as the school run.

With an optional balance bike conversion kit, and one of the largest saddle-height ranges around, Prevelo have clearly recognised the need to build something kids will get maximum use out of over time. It’s not cheap, but having gone to great lengths to make this a bike that can cope with a growth spurt, Prevelo ensure you get more bang for your buck.

We tested the Alpha Two MkIII, and my five-year-old son has certainly been getting great value out of it. When we’re not negotiating the school run on the gnarly streets of East London, we’re out on the trails in Epping Forest. Although getting detailed feedback from him hasn’t been easy, I’ll do my best to explain why the Alpha Two has become a family favourite.

Design and aesthetics 

The Alpha Two has plenty of thoughtful design touches, the most notable of which is probably the frame. Prevelo calls the design THRU-TUBE, and the practical upshot is a low-slung top tube that allows a minimum saddle height of just 430mm / 7 in, with the saddle able to travel all the way up to 640mm / 25.2in as your child grows.

This is about the lowest minimum saddle height you’ll find amongst 16-inch bikes, and the range gives you an extra 60mm / 2.3in compared to many of the Alpha Two’s peers, which means you’ll get more years use out of the bike.

The frame itself is triple-butted 6061 aluminium with internally routed cables and adjustable forged dropouts, which let you set chain tension yourself without fuss. A chainguard keeps trouser legs away from the drivetrain, and there are mounting points on the top tube for Prevelo's Rider Supply Pod (£29), essentially a small bag for snacks and the sort of roadside treasure (sticks, stones, creepy crawlies) that small riders insist on bringing home.

The top tube is 400mm / 15.7in and the wheelbase is 730mm, / 28.7in, both measurements are about as long as you get on a 16-inch bike, and the overall geometry lends itself to a slightly more aggressive riding position. That said, the longer wheelbase increases overall stability.

Up front, the handlebar and stem are a single piece, with recessed bolts and a rounded profile that means the rider is much less likely to catch a flailing knee on something ouchie. The bar is 460mm wide with 19mm grips specifically sized for small hands rather than shrunk down from something bigger.

There are three colours to choose from: Speed Silver, Braap Blue and Party Pink. The overall aesthetic, especially when it came to the Speed Silver we tested, feels distinctly grown up. There aren’t any cute additions to the design and the components mostly look like the ones on mummy or daddy’s bike, a detail that went down well with our tester.

Components and build

Just like the design, the spec on the Prevelo is both high-quality and well considered. The Alpha Two is single speed, with an 18-tooth chainring and a 10-tooth freewheel. That’s a pretty low gear compared to something like the Frog 44, which opts for 32-tooth chainring and 18-tooth cassette, so it’s clearly built to allow your young rider to cope with the odd climb.

The cranks are short and narrow, which makes for a more comfortable ride for little legs, and means less chance of pedals clipping the ground. The drivetrain also comes with adjustable rear dropouts, this means you can tension the chain if required.

For the descents, children get two Tektro V-brakes with levers sized for small hands. While V-brakes are common in this price bracket now, they still present a significant upgrade on the calliper system you find on lower-budget builds.

To help them hug the turns, the Alpha Two comes with a set of Kenda Small Block Eight 16 x 1.5in tyres, but the bike gives you clearance for up to 2.2in rubber if you decide you want something more trail-specific. Both brakes and tyres are good quality but similar spec to other high-end 16-inch options such as the Frog or the Hornit Hero.

Where things are slightly different is the one-piece bar and stem. Most of the similar kids bikes now opt for separate units, akin to the setup you’d find on an adult bike. Prevelo have opted to reduce the weight and amount of sharp edges by integrating the two. There’s a decent amount of rise on the bars, going someway to offset the longer top tube and reach.

The saddle is Prevelo's alloy-reinforced Frame Hugger which, like so much of the Alpha Two, looks and feels like a mature piece of kit. It’s not overly cushioned but didn’t generate any complaints.

There are sealed cartridge bearings in the hubs, bottom bracket and headset, and the rims have shaved sidewalls to save a few grams.

New for the MkIII is Balance-Tec, Prevelo's system for converting the bike between pedal and balance modes. You'll need to buy the conversion kit separately, but it could be a useful way to ease a nervous four-year-old into pedalling, or to get a bit more life out of the bike if your child is still finding their feet.

Prevelo quotes a weight of 5.5kg / 12.1lb without pedals. I weighed our test bike at 5.8kg / 12.8lb with pedals fitted.

Performance

In terms of performance, our Alpha Two has stood up to an almighty thrashing. My resident test rider was trading in his well-worn Islabike Cnoc 16-inch, and he immediately considered it a massive upgrade. The fact that the Cnoc has been handed down by two big cousins probably plays a part in that, as the spec and weight of the two bikes aren’t a world apart.

My son has just turned five, so sits in the middle of the recommended age range and the bike was a perfect fit for him. While the bike’s saddle can drop to 430mm and the low top tube will give smaller cyclists a bit more confidence, the 400mm top tube might leave shorter arms stretching for the bars a bit.

On first impressions, the Alpha Two was a huge hit and you can see why. The low-slung top tube and the downhill MTB-style bars give the whole thing a bit of dirtbike energy, but the medium tread tyres and light weight make sure it’s not crawling along on the asphalt either.

Getting it out of the box, you immediately notice the weight, or lack of it. While 5.5kg doesn’t break any records, as there are some similarly light alternatives now, it’s much easier on the arms than some of the budget beginner bikes out there.

If you’re entering the kids-bike market for the first time, the weight is worth a second mention. No matter how much your young cycling enthusiast falls in love with this bike, there will be occasions when you have to lug the thing home, possibly while also carrying the aforementioned enthusiast, and god knows what else.

From the outset, it was clear Prevelo put a lot of thought into its bikes. The design and spec have so many thoughtful touches, but seeing them in action helped separate the genuinely game-changing from the not-so-useful sales patter.

The one-piece bar and stem unit definitely reduces the chance of chunks being taken out of little knees. Pair this with the shorter cranks and longer top tube, and the ride feels immediately less precarious.

Having taken the Alpha Two on some quite hilly, lumpy terrain, it was noticeable how little we stopped compared to previous rides. The 18-tooth chainring meant my son was able to climb hills he’d previously given up on, while the compact crankset meant he was more confident getting over ruts and roots.

On the descents, the longer wheelbase meant our test rider was much more confident flying into and out of corners. While this isn’t all-out downhill bike, it was noticeably more comfortable on the trails than his old Islabike.

While the brakes aren’t pushing the boundaries in terms of performance at this price point, they work well. If you’re used to cantilever models you’ll definitely notice the difference. The Kenda tyres are also pretty common on 16-inch bikes, but we liked the level of tread given that 90 per cent of our miles are on the road.

The chain cover causes a bit of a rattle, especially on bumpier terrain, but this was reduced when we tensioned the chain.

The high-sounding Rider Supply Pod aka top tube bag (available as an extra) was also a massive hit with our test rider. Although slightly fiddly to attach and a bit cumbersome, giving your young cyclist the ability to take control of their own snacks whilst out on a ride is likely to be met with plenty of enthusiasm.

We’ve been using the Alpha Two on the school run, at the local skate park and on the trails. And for us, that was one of the standout plus points; the bike felt at home at all three. It doesn’t feel like Prevelo has compromised too much to create a bike that is a genuine all-rounder.

The low gearing is a simple decision that makes complete sense. There were a few instances where my son was left wanting a bigger ring when on the flat, but to be honest, he doesn’t need any help going full on the way home from school. What was way more important was that he rarely had to get off on the climbs, which meant for much more enjoyable family outings.

Value

When kids' bikes first entered my sphere of consciousness, there were only really two credible brands out there: Islabikes and Frog. Everything else seemed to weigh a ton.

Of those two brands, Islabikes ceased large-scale production of their kids' bikes back in 2023 (the brand still produces spares and occasional small batches of bikes), while Frog almost went out of business earlier this year, before being acquired by Mike Ashley of Sports Direct and Evans Cycles. It’s clearly a tricky market to crack, but thankfully there are some decent options still out there.

At £385 (or $509 in the US), the Alpha Two is at the higher end of the price bracket. If you’re looking to save some cash, you’re almost certainly going to add some extra weight.

In terms of weight, the closest rivals sit in broadly the same price bracket. The Woom Original 3 is £425 and weighs 5.4kg. This might not look quite as trail-ready as the Alpha Two, but if you’re not planning on straying too far from the school run, then this ticks a lot of the same boxes.

The Hornit HERO 16 is a little cheaper at £359.90 and quotes the same 5.5kg as the Prevelo.

If you’re looking for something genuinely off-road, then the Early Rider Charger might be worth a look. At around £850, it’s a premium purchase, but for your money you get RST suspension forks and hydraulic disc brakes.

The Frog 44 is available for around £330, after a discount from its £390 list price, and weighs in at 6.4kg. It also comes in a far wider range of colours than the Prevelo's three.

Verdict

The Alpha Two is an exceptionally well-thought-out bike that will give hours of enjoyment to whoever is behind the bars. Prevelo has clearly sweated the small stuff, from the extra range in saddle height to the one-piece bar and stem and even the knee-friendly bolts, and the result is a bike that is light, low and easy for small riders to get along with.

Prevelo badges this as an “all-rounder” and you can’t fault the claim. We’ve been using it for every time of riding you can imagine a just-turned-five-year-old capable of, and it’s more than coped with every instance.

The low gearing means there should be far fewer grumbles if you encounter any climbs, and the scaled-down components ensure everything feels fitted rather than unwieldy. When it comes to the descents, the longer wheelbase will help add an extra level of stability on the corners, and at 5.5kg you won’t collapse under it should your rider decide they’re done for the day.

It’s not cheap, but if you have a younger sibling waiting in the wings, or you have some like-minded friends or family who might benefit from a genuinely market-leading piece of kit, then it’s a sound investment.

See more of the Alpha Two at Prevelo.com.

Pre-race, there was plenty of talk of the area's plentiful gravel roads providing the first 'real' Gravel World Championships course. Both the elite women's and men's races had over 80% gravel, which produced no-holds-barred racing.

Marianne Vos (Netherlands) took victory in the women's race, whilst Magnus Bak Klaris (Denmark) confirmed pre-race speculation that this might be the first year a non-European road pro might win the rainbow jersey by taking a classy win.

We took a look at some of the bikes and tech on offer thanks to experienced cycling photographer Russ Ellis (@cyclingimages). Gravel often provides a more varied and interesting range of things to look at compared to a WorldTour road race, and this year's Worlds was no exception.

Some of the year's hottest new gravel aero race bikes were on display, including the elite men's race-winning Factor Elara and the latest Canyon Grail CFR, both bikes with very healthy 57mm tyre clearances.

There was plenty of tape on tools and tyre plugs to be observed, as well as big rubber, mix-and-match groupset arrangements and some very interesting handlebar notes.

Gravel tech is only getting more exciting; we can't wait to see what next year brings.

Thank you for your Cyclingnews subscription. We use our subscription fees to be able to keep producing all our usual great content as well as more premium pieces like this one. Find out more here.

Endurance bikes have for so long been the slightly plodding, dull siblings to their racier counterparts, or cooler all-road siblings. Canyon seems to be trying its best to redress this with the new Canyon Endurace, the top spec model that has been raced at WorldTour level, but how does it fare for the likes of you and me?

Our Tech Writer, Tom Wieckowski, has been putting the bike through its paces on his home roads, testing it with race wheels, and adds in his experiences of the old model, the Aeroad it competes with, and the Cannondale Synapse too. As one of the perks of being a Cyclingnews subscriber, you can watch the full video review now before it goes up on YouTube in a couple of weeks.

Not a subscriber yet? Well, there's no better time to get access to all of our early video content, in-depth features, lab testing, and bumper tech galleries.

{kiosq_button:center}

The update and launch of the Canyon Endurace generated a lot of chat in the run-up to Paris-Roubaix.

Canyon split the launch of its latest endurance road bike, launching the top-tier Endurace CFR, which was designed to help Mathieu Van der Poel win Roubaix first, and then announcing the second- and lower-tiered CF SLX, CF, and Allroad models a little later on.

The latest Endurace CFR really looks like an Aeroad, the brand's aero race bike, and has almost identical geometry numbers.

The Endurace CF SLX that you see here has less racy geometry. In fact, Canyon calls it 'an aero bike with all-day fit'.

Canyon sent me the Endurace CF SLX 8 in 'Champagne' colourway to test; it's one click down from the top-level CF SLX 9 and comes in at $4,200 / $4,499 / $5,999 for the Shimano Ultegra, carbon wheel-equipped model.

The Endurace has a slightly cheaper entry price point than the Aeroad, and is a lot less than the top-spec Endurace CFR, but there's not much in it. When do you buy the Endurace, not the Aeroad?

The Endurace has been considered one of the best endurance bikes for a while now, and the bike's latest update saw it get faster and more aero with bigger tyre clearances and slightly more stable geometry.

I've ridden this bike on the road exclusively for several months, and have even stripped it back to race a local hill climb. This bike is at least a must-consider if you are shopping for an endurance bike around this price point.

Design and aesthetics

The Endurace was last updated in 2023, and at that time I reviewed the CFR model.

My size small bike came in at 8.24kg out of the box with a storage bag and accessories, computer mount, TPU tubes and no pedals.

Unless you order the bike with a storage bag and accessories, which aren't included as standard, you can expect it to be a couple of hundred grams lighter than this. It depends on what you might order and fit to the bike, but it's around this mark.

Canyon has changed a fair bit on the Endurace this time around; frame design, geometry and componentry have all changed.

When it comes to the frame, the biggest visual change comes from the altered seat tube and chainstay junction shape. The seat stays are also more aero, and the bike has a new seatpost.

The round S15 VCLS 2.0 flex seatpost has gone, as has the 'Comfort kink' seat tube cutout. The CF SLX now has a comfort aero post in the form of the SP093 VCLS Aero seatpost, which the brand says increases compliance by over 25% compared to a rigid equivalent. CF models will still come with the round VCLS post, which for me offers more comfort.

Fun fact: you can swap in the rigid Canyon equivalent, which is of course what the Alpecin pros like Jasper Philipsen did when they rode the Endurace CFR.

The frame has received aero tweaks and has been to the wind tunnel. The headtube is aero bike-narrow when viewed from the front, and it's clear that aerodynamic performance has been a consideration even on this second-tier model.

Canyon tested this bike in the GST wind tunnel in Germany with a lower leg dummy across a 20-degree yaw angle sweep, with bottles and cages, 65mm DT Swiss wheels with a 29mm Continental Aero 111 tyre up front and a 30mm GP5000 S TR tyre in the rear.

Average system drag at 45km/h for the Aeroad CFR, Endurace CFR, and CF SLX models was as follows:
Aeroad CFR: 204W
Endurace CFR: 205W
Endurace CF SLX: 209W

So, according to Canyon, there are about 5 watts in it. If you're shopping for an endurance bike and are told it's only about 5 watts slower than what a WorldTour pro is riding, I think that's positive news at face value.

This bike also isn't as stiff, which stands to reason. I asked Canyon for some stiffness numbers too for context, and it sent me over some info, in Newton-meters per degree for the head tube (HT), and Newton-metres per millimetre for the bottom bracket (BB); a bigger number in each case being stiffer:

These numbers show the force required for a degree of movement at the head tube and a millimetre of movement at the bottom bracket on a static test rig. The head tube test looks for twisting force, whilst the BB area deals with linear displacement (the push-pull of pedalling action)

Canyon also told me that stiffer isn't always automatically better, though there seems to be a trend here for race bikes over the endurance model.

Endurace CF SLX (Size M)
HT: 98,1 Nm/°
BB: 59,9 N/mm

Endurace CFR
HT: 114,5 Nm/°
BB: 69 N/mm

Aeroad CFR
HT: 103 Nm/°
BB: 70 N/mm

From Canyon's numbers, we can get some context here on what to expect from the CF SLX; it's slightly less stiff in the bottom bracket and softer at the headtube.

I've ridden and raced on an Aeroad CFR, and whilst you can feel the difference, it isn't a gaping chasm. I'll talk about this more, because with this endurance bike getting racier, I want to highlight what you can expect from the CF SLX's riding performance if you are considering one.

What else is new for the CF SLX? Well, the top tube storage hatch has now gone; it's been moved to the down tube. The bits in the tool roll could rattle against the top tube on the old bike; things are silent now, and there's more room. It's a good change.

Tyre clearance has also been boosted to 38mm from 35, providing room for even bigger rubber. My bike came stock with Schwalbe Pro One Evo 32 mm tyres. Starting with 32mm tyres does boost comfort.

The CF SLX can also be fitted with Canyon's Endurace CF SLX Fast Fender set, which comes in at £119.99. The fenders quickly fit to semi-permanent mounts which are fitted to the bike frame. You can of course just fit a clip-on guard, but they tend to need more fiddling with. It's a valuable option if you are considering this model as a winter bike or all-round workhorse, though clearance will be reduced to 35mm with them.

The Canyon Load tool pack costs £19.99 and doesn't come with the bike, so you will need to buy a frame storage bag at the least to take advantage of the built-in storage space.

I'd also recommend just mentally adding £33.99 / $39.95 to the cost of the bike you may be looking at, as you will need to buy the Gear Groove computer mount, which neatly integrates with the handlebars. There isn't really another option apart from O-rings and a basic mount.

Canyon doesn't tend to include mounts or many accesories. It would be nice to see the proprietary mount included with the bike, or just the price increased to cover the mount and eliminate a bolt-on at checkout; it feels a bit clunky to me, especially now that many brands include specific mounts.

The CF SLX 8 comes with a dependable Shimano Ultegra Di2 groupset with a 34-50 chainset and 11-34 cassette. You also get a 4iiii P3+ left-hand crank-based power meter; I found its numbers a tad jumpy compared to some dual-sided PM pedals, but it's nice to get one included for the price.

Endurace bikes now come with shorter cranks; depending on size, bikes have 160, 165 or 170mm cranks, to facilitate more comfortable positions and opening up riders' hip angles. My size small bike came with 165mm cranks.

There's also the integrated CP0048 PACE T-Bar with new 'compact' drops. The Endurace stock handlebar is 390mm to 440mm wide, with three adjustable settings via a pair of T25 Torx bolts under the bar tops. The bars have a 108mm drop and an 8-degree flare.

If you want a narrower handlebar, you will need the Race Drops with their 350 and 400 mm width, but they are going to set you back £219.99. It would be really nice to see these as an alternate option when speccing the bike at checkout.

The CF SLX also gets the Canyon Sport Geometry; the CFR has different Sport Pro geo. Compared to the previous Endurace CF SLX, the chainstays are 3 mm longer, the wheelbase is 16mm longer, and the effective stack and reach are pretty much identical.

The last Endurace CFR I rode was a real hot hatch; this updated model does feel a fraction longer to me, and just a little bit calmer in the handling department.

I've ridden a size small and am 176cm in height; my bike came with 165mm cranks as mentioned, an 80mm stem as standard, and has a stack and reach of 565mm and 386mm. Whilst that 80mm stem size may seem too small, I've ridden endurance bikes with longer stems that felt shorter; the Canyon geometry is well designed to make life easy, whilst still keeping everything looking good.

I think if you're a rider that needs a longer reach, double-check things, but this being an endurance bike, you're possibly on board for shorter reach numbers anyway.

To compare that to the recently launched Trek Domane in a Medium (an equivalent size for me) that I rode, the CF SLX is 10mm taller with a 12mm longer reach.

Compared to a size small Aeroad, the Endurace is 26mm taller and 4mm shorter.

Performance

My previous best-ever recorded power for one minute was set riding the Aeroad CFR a couple of years back; I improved on that number in my final week of testing on the Endurace.

Of course that doesn't mean this bike's faster than an Aeroad, but I share that information to show that it's a competitive bike with racy performance. This isn't a boring, endurance machine that can't be ridden hard.

'More speed, Captain' has been my train of thought for harder rides on the Endurace; I personally want a narrower handlebar. Coming from the 35cm Hyper bar I rode on the Winspace M6 left me disappointed at first and has been one of the things that makes the bike feel less quick for me, but I've adapted to the wider bar over time.

I've swapped in the new Dura-Ace C50 wheels I'm testing at times with fast 28mm tyres to sharpen things up, and they do extract more speed from the bike; a quicker pair of wheels does add more speed to the Endurace. Switching back to a 32mm tyre and lower pressures does introduce more comfort and just calms things down, which is great for everyday riding.

If this sounds a bit like you, the Aeroad or even the Endurace CFR (though it's expensive) is probably going to be the model to go for. If you purchase this bike and then constantly look for ways to make it faster, it's probably the wrong choice. Though the prospect of a fully aero, race-spec Endurace with that higher front end is an intriguing one. But if that is the case, the Aeroad or Ultimate, depending on what you need, are the way to go.

However, Canyon has, in my opinion, brought its endurance bikes even closer to its race ones with this update; the differences are finer in many areas. This is a key point to convey: the Endurace is a fast, capable bike with racy characteristics; it's just more comfortable and versatile.

The ride experience from the Endurace has been very good. The handling for me is just a touch calmer and slower than the previous bike, probably due to that longer wheelbase.

Handling and cornering on the bike are excellent; no concerns there for me. Diving into corners or braking hard are tackled with ease. Canyon has created a very capable overall handling package.

The geometry is also very balanced; it's an impressive blend. The bike doesn't feel too short or sit up and beg, but I can still achieve my usual hunkered down on the hoods aero position. However, due to that shorter reach and taller stack, I'm locked into the hoods very comfortably. I can also ride the bike slammed with ease due to that taller front end, and the saddle-to-bar drop makes it look attractive.

It's not as stiff and zippy as an Aeroad, or another full-blown race bike, and that's part of the feeling I miss slightly. It's not electric to ride, but the experience is still very pleasant.

I can't say I feel much ride smoothing from the new VCLS aero post; that's not to say it's not doing its thing, though. I think tyre and pressure will do the heavy lifting for you when it comes to smoothing things out. With a 32mm tyre, or bigger, the ride is refined and smooth.

The shallower DT Swiss wheels are also a good call for me; their 35mm rims just make things that little more user-friendly and aid the handling compared to a deeper, more aero wheelset. It's a nippy yet comfortable wheelset and pairs very nicely with the good-quality 32mm Schwalbe Pro One tyres.

The stock Fizik Aliante R5 isn't a saddle I'm crazy about; the way its profile changes shape, rising near the nose, makes it hard for me to get truly comfortable. I'd probably change it, but as ever with saddles, it will come down to personal preference.

The only niggle I've had from the bike came from the saddle rail adjustment bolt, which worked loose, meaning the saddle dropped forward at very annoying times on a hard ride until I torqued it to spec. Saddle fore-aft and angle adjustment bolts are seperate, which makes life easy, but it's the second Canyon model I've experienced it on, so do check this bolt after a few rides, which you should be doing anyway.

Everything else has been perfect on the bike, and I've had no issues. I feel riders are familiar with Canyon's adjustable stem and bar platform now, and it is very easy to adjust. Just look after it long-term to prevent any issues.

Maintenance and servicing

The key maintenance considerations when it comes to the Endurace CF SLX are front-end related. The integrated Canyon handlebar assembly will need to be looked after long-term to help minimise big workshop labour bills. A full strip-down for headset bearing replacement won't be that cheap.

Minimise front-end blasting when washing, and consider a mudguard or the Canyon fender set for wet weather riding to look after those headset bearings.

Check bolt torque specs every so often, particularly the pair of Torx bolts under each bar top, and the stem bolts.

I'd recommend something like six-monthly-ish headset bearing cleaning and re-greasing just to stay on top of them and prevent them getting into a real state; that's when things will get expensive.

Value

The CF SLX comes in at $4,200 / $4,499 / $5,999 as pictured, a very competitive price for the solid spec, which includes a power meter. Don't forget the £80 / $99 Canyon shipping and packaging fee at checkout.

For me, you get more value with this spec than a range of other big-name endurance bike competitors that I have tested personally.

Don't forget there's also the 105 Di2-equipped bike for slightly less cash, the performance will be on a par with Ultegra overall.

It's a good chunk of cash cheaper than a similarly specced Specialized Roubaix endurance bike, and if you want an equivalent Ultegra Di2-equipped Domane from Trek, you will spend over $1,000 more. Ditto the Cannondale Synapse, which, for a similar Ultegra Di2 spec, costs £6000 / $6,499.

The Ridley Grifn RS endurance bike is another competitor with similar performance, which I rate, but the CF SLX also has it beaten on price by a fair chunk of cash.

The Endurace spec is solid, with no gaping holes or weak points; yes, you might want to change the saddle, and you will need to buy at least the Canyon computer mount.

Canyon's direct-to-consumer pricing has a lot of its big-name competition beaten on price and in performance.

Verdict

The Endurace CF SLX is an excellent all-round endurance bike that sits at the faster, performance-oriented end of the endurance bike spectrum.

It isn't as stiff or as exciting to ride as a full-blown race bike, but it isn't too far off at all and offers a competitive, comfortable, and confident riding experience that will welcome you pushing it hard and going fast or tackling an all-day adventure.

The taller front end and more relaxed geometry are still purposeful, but it's more user-friendly than the Aeroad or Endurace CFR geometry. If this is a key concern for you, and you don't need a massive amount of reach, don't chance the Aeroad and regret being too stretched out or low; go for the Endurace.

Throw in the 38mm tyre clearance, which gives you plenty of room for bigger comfort-boosting tyres, improved down tube storage and the ability to run full fenders, and you have one of the most well-rounded endurance bikes out there right now.

After months of exclusive riding on the road, I'm in agreement with Canyon's statement that this is 'an aero bike with all-day fit'.

The Falcn model was launched back in 2023 as a bike to slot in between the Noah and Helium models and prioritised a blend of 'aero to weight'.

This bike was ridden by Tour de France yellow jersey wearer Torstein Træen during this year's race. We noticed Uno-X with a different-looking Ridley bike, and now know that it was the Falcn RS 2.0. It was also spotted at the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes back in June.

Ridley appears to have dropped a healthy amount of weight from the Falcn 2.0, and the frame looks similar to the 1st gen bike. The brand insists it's 'not an evolution of its predecessor, but a completely new design'

The previous-gen Falcn has fairly aggressive, standard geometry. Ridley appears to have applied its more progressive modern geometry philosophy to the new Falcn now too.

It sounds like dropping weight from the frame was a key concern regarding the new bike. In its lightest version, which weighs a claimed 6.2kg, it's easily within the UCI 6.8kg weight limit and still has 35mm tyre clearance.

It's probably safe to assume that Traeen's Tour bike will have been bang on the 6.8kg minimum weight number.

Ridley optimised the frame's carbon layup to reduce frameset weight by 12% compared to the 1st gen bike. For instance, the brake mounts are now hollow, and a new lightweight seatpost clamp has been fitted. A medium frame weighs a claimed 705 grams.

Ridley says the frame has fewer 'sharper angles' and unnecessary details. In short, the Falcn was 'put on a diet' but not at the expense of lateral stiffness, which would detract from the bike's performance and ride quality.

Ridley has access to its own wind tunnel facility, but we don't have much in the way of hard data for the new Falcn.

What the brand does say is that aerodynamic drag has not been negatively affected. The bike's new seatpost is slimmer, in part thanks to relocating the Di2 battery to the downtube, which is said to help. The brand has also specced some interesting wheels, which we will get to.

In short, it feels safe to assume that the bike is at least on a par aero-wise with the previous-gen bike, but it likely isn't going to trouble the brand's aero race bike, the Noah Fast 3.0

A geometry overhaul

New geometry has been developed for the Grifn RS 2.0, which Ridley says was based on rider feedback and bike fits from the Uno-X team.

The key theme is riders adopting a more forward position on the bike. To this end, Ridley has given the bike a steeper 76-degree seat tube angle across all frame sizes, which it says improves pedalling efficiency.

Paired with this steeper seat tube is a longer reach and a taller stack number; the brand is aiming to create a progressive riding position to open riders' hip angles, which ties into the general move toward shorter crank lengths that is ongoing. This is along the same lines as the Felt Nexar, which launched earlier in the year.

Ridley says this creates improved comfort during long efforts and also mentions the bike's lower bottom bracket to boost high-speed stability.

As an example, the stack for a Medium bike is 562mm, whilst the reach is 425 mm. Quite a long number on paper, but one which is offset by the 76-degree seat tube angle.

Big wheelset specs

Ridley has specified some interesting wheelsets for the Falcn 2.0 stock builds, all setups will also come with TPU tubes as standard to help save weight.

The top spec SRAM Red AXS build comes with exotic AX Lightness Ultra SL wheels which use a 45mm rim but weigh in at a claimed 950 grams per pair.

The Ultegra Di2 build will come with Mavic Comet 50 wheels which feature carbon spokes and ceramic bearings.

Finally, the Force AXS build will feature Forza Skiron RSR wheels which have a 50mm rim, 23mm internal dimension and CeramicSpeed bearings. The wheelset weighs a claimed 1197 grams.

Pricing, weights and specs

The Falcn RS 2.0 is available in three build options. It's also possible to configure bikes on the Ridley custom web configurator tool.

Shimano Ultegra Di2 build weighs a claimed 6.8kg and costs €7,499.

The SRAM Force AXS build weighs a claimed 6.65kg and comes in at €8,499.

The SRAM Red AXS top spec build weighs a claimed 6.2kg and costs €12,499.

Colnago says, “You can't simply borrow road metrics - weight, stiffness, aerodynamics - and apply them just as easily to a gravel bike.”

The Italian brand has focused on creating a bike that can excel across a broad range of gravel racing. It highlights events including the Traka 200, Unbound 200, Badlands and GranGuanche Audax as examples of the different types of racing the G5-X is designed to handle.

The G5-X embraces the trend towards wider tyres, offering clearance for 53mm tyres, not class-leading, but an improvement of 8mm over the outgoing G4-X. Colnago ships all models with 50mm tyres fitted, making use of the frame's increased tyre clearance, which is something I like to see.

The frame is still relatively traditional-looking, though, which may please Colnago purists. The brand has decided on a round 27.2mm seatpost to boost comfort and open up dropper post options.

Another new feature is integrated frame storage within the downtube, which is said to fit a tube, CO₂ canister, tools and a plug kit.

The G5-X also gets mounting points on the top tube, downtube and fork - six in total, including two additional fork mounts designed with ultra-distance and bikepacking races in mind.

Colnago has carried over its integrated CC.01 Wide cockpit, which has more flare than the standard CC.01, at 3cm rather than 1cm per side. Like the standard CC.01, it's a carbon monocoque design intended to keep weight down while maintaining stiffness.

The new bike also comes with the option of Fidlock Twist Lock technology, allowing you to use either conventional bottles or Fidlock-compatible accessories. The mechanical attachment is designed to keep bottles securely in place over rough terrain, reducing the risk of losing a bottle, while the side-loading system can be useful on smaller frames or when the bike is loaded up and space is limited.

Colnago hasn't pushed the boundaries in any one particular area with the G5-X. Instead, you're getting a gravel race bike that should do everything you need it to do, and nothing you don't - a "fast yet capable bike" as Colnago puts it.

For example, the Factor Elara went all out in its pursuit of speed, the third-generation Canyon Grail prioritised wide tyre clearance with room for 57mm tyres, while the Specialized S-Works Crux went after low weight.

Geometry, specs, and pricing

The G5-X will be available in five sizes, from 45cm to 57cm, three bike builds and two colour options.

Compared with the G4-X, the G5-X has longer chainstays and a longer wheelbase. The head tube angle is also slightly slacker, while the reach is marginally longer, changes that Colnago says offer “more stability even in a compact position”.

The bottom bracket is also lower on the G5-X to help improve stability at speed, with the BB drop increasing from 70mm to 77.5mm on a 54cm frame.

As for pricing, the entry-level model (if such a thing can ever be said of a Colnago) is built with SRAM Rival XPLR and Vision TC45 Carbon wheels, costing $5,500 / €4,900 / £5,299.99.

A more expensive SRAM Force XPLR build, also with Vision TC45 Carbon wheels, is available for $7,500 / €5,750 / £6,299.99.

The range topper is a SRAM Red XPLR AXS build with Zipp 303 XPLR SW wheels for $10,500 / €9,200 / £9,999.99.

Interestingly, this is less than the flagship Specialized S-Works Crux in a SRAM Red build, which costs $13,999.99 / £11,999.

It feels like new race-oriented gravel bikes are being released pretty much constantly, and the requirements for a competitive gravel race bike seem to get more specific and purposeful with every passing season.

Look launched its G85 Cezal all-rounder back in April, and we covered that launch with a first-ride impressions piece, after swinging a leg over the new machine in Italy.

Fast forward to now, and Look has given the Cezal a race tune and 'RS' model update with some boosted clearances and High Modulus carbon fibre.

The French brand says that the Cezal RS is 'engineered specifically for riders seeking precision, reactivity and speed across medium and long distances'. Gravel racer Russell Finsterwald has played a hand in the bike's development and rode to a top 20 Traka 360 result on a prototype of the bike earlier in the year.

It's been a big year for racy gravel bike launches. Just recently we have covered the Factor Elara, Canyon Grail and Specialized Crux.

You will notice the Cezal has non-dropped seatstays for a more traditional look, and Look has given it relatively normal 50mm rear and 57mm front tyre clearances.

On paper, the bike may not look as cutting-edge as some of its competitors, and that mismatched tyre clearance figure may disappoint some, but Look argues it has drawn on real-world riding scenarios to come up with a highly competitive gravel machine that's the right tool for the job.

Look claims the Cezal RS has been built around three core pillars: Versatile performance, responsive handling, and balanced component selection. The brand also said that it will provide a 'competition-ready setup for 99% of race scenarios'.

Those core pillars sound sensible. We attended a pre-launch video call on the new bike, and it sounded as though creating a well-rounded bike informed by real-world race experience, not just one that would light up the comments sections, was a priority.

The RS has the same geometry as the G85 Cezal, and Look says it stuck with the non-dropped seatstays and a round seatpost to improve the bike's handling, citing the need for real-world control over deep tube shapes.

The carbon fibre used in construction has been upgraded, though; the RS has a High Modulus (HM) carbon fibre layup, which saves a healthy 200 grams off the frame weight compared to the standard G85 Cezal.

Claimed weight for the medium frame is 1000 grams for the frame with hardware.

This HM layup provides a very stiff headtube, which Look says is stiffer than its Blade RS3 road bike.

The upgraded layup is said to boost bottom bracket stiffness by 19% and headtube stiffness by 20%.

The brand claims the rear seatstays 'filter 15% of vibrations', but there's no further context on that number.

Tyre clearance is 57mm up front and 50mm at the rear. It can also be run with a double chainset setup with 45mm clearance. Looks says it wanted to retain shorter chainstays and a snappier ride quality over a bigger rear clearance number. A front suspension fork can also be fitted for more technical terrain.

The G85 Cezal RS will be available as a frameset and in two full build options.

The frameset will retail at €3,290 and include a Token T47 bottom bracket, flat-mount brake hardware, and a Look LS1 27.2mm seatpost.

The complete builds centre around SRAM XPLR gravel-specific groupsets.

The SRAM XPLR build has an RRP of €6,990 and will come with a 40-tooth chainring. Fulcrum Sharq C25 wheels, Hutchinson Touareg Race 45mm tyres and Deda Superzero carbon handlebar and stem. Claimed weight is 8.3kg.

The top-tier Red XPLR build comes in at €8,990 and will come with a racier 44-tooth aero chainring. It will also feature Fulcrum Sharq C25 wheels and the same Hutchinson 45mm tyres, but will come with the Look Aero carbon stem and RS 3 handlebar. Claimed weight is 7.9kg.

While Tadej Pogačar started out his two-year reign as world champion on a white bike, he has raced on a black version ever since the middle of last season. And now, his teammate and heir McNulty, following his daring attack on the streets of Montreal last weekend, is carrying on that torch with a black, glittery Colnago Y1Rs that has just been unveiled.

Together, they are bucking the trend of white world champion's machines. Peter Sagan, Mark Cavendish, and at times Julian Alaphilippe all had black bikes, as did Anna Van der Breggen and Annamiek Van Vleuten in both of their separate stints as world champion. But in the last few years, white had come to dominate thanks to the likes of Mathieu van der Poel, Remco Evenepoel, and Lotte Kopecky.

As well as a difference in aesthetics, there's also a performance element in terms of weight; white paint usually uses heavy titanium-based pigments, and so opting for black is an easy way to shave grams.

According to Colnago, McNulty's new bike has a "glossy black carbon base enriched with a subtle glitter effect" and is "defined by a bold colour-block graphic featuring the iconic UCI rainbow stripes."

There's no denying the stripes, which make up the paint for the entirety of the forks as well as the majority of the rear triangle.

It's clearly a different look to what we've seen in recent seasons, and there is a fun easter egg hidden behind the bayonet fork hinge, as well as some trick upgrades that show that the focus has been on saving weight, meaning this is a bike that McNulty will actually be racing on, rather than simply shown off at sign-on before swapping to his more usual matte black version.

When Trek launched the Domane in 2012, with a new Isospeed vibration-reducer at the foot of its seatpost, it’s fair to say that the skinny road-bike tyres of the time weren’t a big part of the shock-absorbing equation. Roll comfortably forward to 2026, when disc brakes and a shift in perception have made ever-fatter tyres commonplace, and Trek has decided Isospeed has dutifully served its time.

The new Gen 5 Domane is lighter, simpler, almost as smooth-riding on a test track, and with its new bar setup and shorter cranks, in theory even more designed for all-day comfort than the previous model.

Tom Wieckowski detailed many of the technical changes and praised the comfort and responsiveness of the £6,700 ($8,499) high-end Domane SLR 7 AXS Gen 5 on a first-impressions test. This review looks at how the entry-level model, the £2500 ($2,699) SL 5, holds up.

The three more entry-level SL models have the same frameset measurements as their higher-end SLR siblings, with their post-Isospeed vibration damping coming from a combination of 35mm tyres (up from 32mm), vertical compliance in their carbon seatposts, and increased vertical compliance in the frame.

Design and aesthetics 

The goal of endurance bikes is to have more all-day comfort and practicality than a pure race bike, while retaining some of the sportiness. The brief for the Domane Gen 5 was basically to crank up both the comfort and the sportiness.

In terms of comfort, the geometry numbers haven’t changed much from Gen 4: the same fairly high front end (575mm stack for a medium), the same short reach (374mm, which gives a comfortably un-stretched-out fit, even by generally relaxed endurance bike standards).

The handlebars now have a 20mm rise, with a slight back sweep, which gives a slightly more natural hand position on the tops, and the option to either run the bars higher than before, or to take out a spacer or two for a sleeker. In addition, the previously standard crank lengths have been shortened across the board - a medium now comes with 165mm cranks instead of 172.5, which keeps your hip angle more open.

The biggest comfort-related changes are in vibration damping. It’s out with the Isospeed unit, which was a bearing-based pivot that allowed flex at the junction between the top tube and the seat tube; and in with bigger tyres and a carbon seatpost with a little flex built into its fibres. The Bontrager Kwaremont Pro tyres have increased from 32mm to 35mm (it might not sound much, but it’s around 20 per cent more volume), and there’s now room for 40mm if you want to go even smoother on the road, or venture slightly further off-road.

In terms of control and predictability, the biggest change is probably the added security from bigger tyres with lower pressures. If you were reading the geometry charts with eagle eyes, you might also notice that the trail measurement around the front wheel position has increased from 5.9 to 6.3 (probably thanks to a fractionally slacker head tube angle and bigger tyre size). All else being equal, this can slightly improve high-speed stability and straight-line tracking, but potentially make handling slightly less lively at slower speeds.

On to sportiness: while some models in the Domane Gen 5 range have lost a big chunk of weight, and the new range-topper SLR 9 AXS 1x has rightly grabbed attention by tipping the scales at 6.63kg, on paper at 8.84kg. The Gen 5 SL 5 is only 250g lighter than its predecessor - useful if not huge - and keeps the same wheels.

A final hallmark of endurance bikes is practicality - like the Gen 4, the Gen 5 keeps discreet fender mounts, including the ability to fit a seatstay bridge and it has mounts for a top-tube bag. It no longer has a down-tube storage compartment though. My test bike came with a neat ‘Trek RCS Pro Stem Blender Base’, a £10 widget that fits into the front of the stem and allows lights, etc to be attached via a GoPro-style mount, though I’m not sure that this comes as default.

It also remains a relatively practical bike to service. The cockpit uses split spacers so that the neatly routed cables and hoses don’t have to be disconnected if you want to adjust the bar height or replace the stem. The bottom bracket remains threaded. And on this model, up to a point, the mechanical Shimano 105 gears will be easier and cheaper to troubleshoot than their electronic alternatives.

In terms of looks, I may be in a minority for saying that while the frameset is beautifully finished, the stem and spacers are sleek, and the seat tube has a beguiling shimmer, I found something about the bike visually unbalanced. It may be that the size of the head tube is slightly at odds with the rest of the bike, or that the tubes shout speed while the geometry shouts comfort.

It may even just be that the Trek logo makes the down tube look bigger than it is. I suspect the entry-level 23mm deep wheels also make a difference to the balance of the looks, though they proved to perform perfectly reliably, and they’re a nice future upgrade opportunity. I had a number of compliments about the Domane SL 5 , including for its colour, so I feel slightly bad confessing that I didn't fall for it aesthetically.

Performance

It took a few rides, but I really warmed to the Domane SL 5 Gen 5. I used it mostly for exploring the Yorkshire Dales, including a couple of centuries, club rides, and commutes. By the end of my month with it, I realised I was always looking forward to riding it.

Hand on heart, my first impression out of the box was that it was heavier than I expected. Trek says 8.84 kg for a size medium-large with a tubeless setup, but my medium was 9.06 kg (19 lb 15.58 oz). That’s only a few hundred grams off the mid-spec steel Fairlight I’ve been riding as a four-season steed this year.

On my first ride, I wanted it to be as fast and flowing as the Domanes in Trek’s beautiful mountainous promo videos, and I was frustrated that it wasn’t. On my second ride - a 90-miler into the craggy hills of the Lake District - I focused on feeling as comfortable as possible for as long as possible instead, and the Domane shone.

It didn’t accelerate playfully, but neither did it make your heart sink as you got out of the saddle for another 1 in 4 climb. It certainly felt as if it transferred power from the cranks to the wheels effectively. It was composed on descents, and as you might imagine, the 35mm tyres made easy weather of broken back roads. At no point did I wish I was on a different bike.

Just as importantly, my body stayed comfortable for longer. I’ve unfairly resisted endurance bikes as not being "proper road bikes", but when my shoulders lasted six hours before getting a bit sore, rather than the usual two, I grudgingly accepted they might be onto something. My first instinct had also been to take all the headset spacers out, so that I could lean into corners better, be more aero, and just look a bit cooler, but I’m glad I didn’t for that ride, and I left them in place for the rest of the test.

The handlebars may have helped the shoulders too. At 400mm, they're just the right width for me, nicely in-turned levers, a discreet amount of flare in the drops, a shorter 70mm reach and a subtle backsweep.

Another comfort-oriented eye-opener were the short 165mm cranks, which kept the angle of the hip joint more open because the knees don’t have to come up so high when pedalling. I have some hip-joint damage, and the combination of the cranks and maybe the higher stack height, meant it didn’t flare up at all during the test. It also meant I was able to use the drops more easily, for longer.

I ran the tyres at 45-48psi, which was the recommendation for a combined bike and rider weight of about 75kg. I wouldn’t quite say it was like a magic carpet, but it was more than composed enough to let you confidently hold a line over uneven tarmac, rather than anxiously weaving around cracks. That little reduction in cognitive load, along with better real-world rolling resistance from the tyres, and general all-body comfort from the geometry, seemed like the kinds of things that let you stay out longer, and I was glad of it.

I only really noticed that it was a bit slower handling at low speeds when I got back on my Fairlight. On the move, especially on descents, it was nice and stable but not oppressively so - decent at holding the line you gave it, rather than trying to right itself onto its own line, as some longer-trail bikes can do.

On my long semi-rural commutes, it was also a good companion - easy on the body early in the mornings but brisk enough that you felt you were getting there, and pleasant to manoeuvre once you got into traffic.

Downsides were few, other than the initial disappointment about the weight. Coming from a year of road riding mostly on Shimano GRX brakes, I didn’t find the 105 brakes bit quite as positively, and on steep descents I was more likely to move into the drops for more braking power, whereas with GRX I pretty much braked from the hoods all the time.

On a more minor note, you might also want to stock up on the sleek rubber stoppers that fill the unused M5 bolt mounts around the frame - or replace them with actual bolts. I lost two within two weeks, once while transporting the bike, another while cleaning it.

In terms of the rest of the components, the mechanical 105 gears were fine. I appreciated the smaller steps in the gearing than I’d got used to on a 1x setup, and the fact you could use pretty much all the rear sprockets on either chainring without chainrub on the front mech.

If it was my bike, when the 11-34 cassette wore out, I’d replace it with a 11-36 so that I could stay in the saddle for a few extra yards on the steepest climbs. The Bontrager Paradigm 23 wheels stayed true and smooth for the length of the test, as you’d hope they would. The Bontrager Kwaremont Pro tyres were confident enough in wet, dry and slightly loose road conditions, if slightly noisy, as 35mm tyres are likely to be; and I got on fine with the short-nosed Verse Short Comp saddle.

Value

In terms of value on paper, the Trek Domane SL 5 Gen 5 holds up fine against other big-brand 105-equipped endurance rivals like the Giant Defy Advanced 2 (which is the same weight, and £200 more), and the Specialized Roubaix SL8 Sport (fractionally heavier, £300 more, with 20mm of travel in its headset suspension). It’s £300g more and 450g heavier than the Canyon Endurace CF7, which comes with sexier and lighter 34mm carbon wheels.

If you were to go up one notch in the Domane Gen 5 range to the SL6 AXS, you’d gain entry-level SRAM electronic gears, 50mm carbon wheels and a 200g sliver of weight saving, but it would cost you an extra £1,250. So the SL 5 seems reasonably priced and a nice platform for a future wheel upgrade, perhaps.

Verdict

The Trek Domane SL 5 Gen 5 is an easy bike to live with, and even in its entry-level spec, a nice showcase for the way a good endurance bike can be brisk enough and all-day comfortable at the same time.

It genuinely made me look forward to long rides. It was a good reminder too that even in hilly areas, weight is only one factor in the equation. A fresher body and a fresher mind - from a smoother ride and a more comfortable fit - will always help on climbs as well as flat land.

Few gravel bikes have caused quite as much of a stir in recent years as the new Factor Elara, with its massive forks, racy geometry, and impressive aero figures according to Factor and backed up by our own independent wind tunnel testing.

Senior Tech Writer and Cyclingnews Tech YouTube presenter, Will, has been putting it through its paces since launch and describes it as "an unapologetically race-oriented machine, with no concessions to non-race utility", though he does concede that unlike Factor's road-going hyper bike, the ONE, it is a lot more useable for the non-professional rider.

Want to see how it fared in a full video review? Well, as a Cyclingnews subscriber, you don't have to wait until the latest video goes live on YouTube; you can just scroll down a bit to watch how the fastest gravel bike in our wind tunnel testing performs in the real world.

Not yet subscribed? Well, there's still time, and then you'll not only be getting early access to video reviews, but also all of our industry-leading LABS tests, high-res galleries from races, in-depth features and much more besides.

{kiosq_button:center}

The list was huge and, to be fair, is packed with some real banging discounts.

Shop the Sigma Sports Warehouse Sale.

As Cyclingnews' deal-hunting guru, I've spent several hours sifting through it (so you don't have to), but it quickly became overwhelming, with a ton of items down to the last remnants of stock, and some of it, to be frank, is total garbage.

However, saying the one man's trash is another man's treasure, and who am I to judge if you've been on the hunt for an Oakley Face Mask? Well, the hunt is no longer, because you can relive the COVID-19 days with 97% off and grab it for just 50p. That's a huge £14.50 off the staggering £15 RRP.

After you've picked up one of the best face masks on the market, a new bike might be on your wish list. There are deals across some of the best road bikes and gravel bikes from the likes of Cervelo, Specialized, Trek and more. Including a huge £5,001 off the Cervelo R5 Red XPLR AXS, which is a bike we branded as road bike royalty and awarded a 4.5-star rating.

So the choice is yours, and below you'll find 22 of the best deals, but there are plenty more to be had; you just need to be willing to do some serious sifting.

With it being a clearance, it's the last of the stock, so sizing is limited. We'd say if you see something you're after, then grab it while you can, even if it's that Oakley Face Mask.

This year’s Montreal championships are no different, the governing body announcing changes in its approach to technical regulations and a review of the Lugano Charter, the 30-year-old document governing the fundamentals of bikes and kit used in racing.

There have long been complaints that the Charter has failed to keep pace with technical advances and, though no details are yet known, changes to the Lugano Charter could open the way for major changes to the bikes ridden in UCI sanctioned races.

Established in 1996, the Charter was intended to standardise equipment and to ensure the rider remained the most important component, not the machine. Some of the regulations stemming from the charter include the double triangle shape of a racing bike and the 6.8kg minimum weight limit for road bikes, so controversially breached by Lorena Wiebes during the opening stage of the Giro d’Italia Women this year.

"Thirty years after its adoption, given the evolution of practices, societal issues and safety requirements, it had become necessary to undertake a review of its content," the UCI said of the Charter review.

The UCI has promised the process will be managed to "Avoid any excesses which would compromise safety, fairness, universality or sustainability," and is to consult with industry stakeholders on equipment regulation.

Xavier Disley, the founder of components brand AeroCoach, sits on the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry and has welcomed the proposals.

"The fact they’re willing to revisit the Lugano charter (and the rules that have stemmed from that) is very welcome news," Disley told Cyclingnews. "Technology is ever changing in unpredictable ways and it’s perfectly natural for regulations to change and be updated accordingly.

"Even a small change, like the seat stay dimension box or top tube box, would result in the ability to design very different looking, and different performing frames, for example. There is the other side of it, however, the recent trend of wider forks, seat stays - is this something that a new charter would look to limit further? As that’s what we’ve seen with updates to internal dimensions in those areas, so it would be odd to then relax them back again.

"We could also have a scenario where track is split out from road and TT, creating more room for manoeuvre in terms of design rather than having to fall under the same restrictions for the frame."

As part of its wider approach to equipment regulation, the UCI will establish a "new framework for consultation with cycling industry stakeholders on equipment regulation." This framework will include a number of Technical Committees, each of which will be dedicated to specific areas, including clothing, protective equipment, wheels and tyres, and frames.

These consultative groups are potentially a major step forward given that some manufacturers have accused the governing body of a lack of consultation. Last year wheel brand Swiss Side called for a science-based approach to regulations after the introduction of limits on wheel rim depth came into force at the start of 2026.

And consultation might have prevented the legal battle between the UCI and SRAM following the proposed introduction of regulations governing gear ratios. That regulation was designed to reduce racing speeds and improve safety by setting an upper limit on the size of gear that racers can use, but by proxy, it effectively banned the American company’s drivetrain due to its use of a smaller 10-tooth cog at the rear cassette.

The UCI says a draft of the updated Lugano Charter will will be made available early next year ahead of consultation with interested parties, including manufacturers, and the finalised Charter will be published later in 2027.

Subscribe to Cyclingnews for comprehensive race coverage of both the UCI Road and Gravel World Championships, alongside the final monument of the season, Il Lombardia. Subscribers get unlimited access to exclusive analysis from our expert columnists, in-depth features and industry-leading tech insight. Plus, the Cyclingnews app lets you follow the action wherever you go! Join today.

Enter the Elara, then, with that whopping fork clearly derived from the design principles of the Factor ONE. Our own wind tunnel testing concludes that it is the fastest gravel bike out there, at least of those that we've managed to lay our hands on, and having given it a thorough run out on everything from fast, flat, well graded gravel to what can be best described as ‘adventurous terrain’, I’m happy to report that chimes with my own experiences.

It is, like the ONE, an unapologetically race-oriented machine, with no concessions to non-race utility, but unlike the ONE it’s actually a lot easier to see it in use as a training machine if speed and performance on the rough stuff is your goal. It’s not necessarily the right bike for me, but I have very much enjoyed riding it.

Design and aesthetics

I have a feeling that if the ONE hadn’t paved the way already then the Elara would have received a much more frosty reception in the visual department. The front end is certainly arresting, but hold your thumb over that front end for a second and tell me it doesn’t look like a pretty standard gravel bike everywhere else.

I have actually really warmed to the aesthetics of it, in a way I haven’t with the ONE. I think the fact that gravel is free for the most part from the clutches of the UCI (not to suggest that this bike is illegal in any way - it isn’t) I’m happier to see machines that are very much non-traditional. The fork, with its gaping maw, looks evil in this raw carbon finish, and while it’s slightly at odds with the svelte build of the rest of the frame I think it balances out well once you slot in the massive Black Inc. Sixty Four Gravel wheels and some 50+mm rubber.

I do need to address the tyre clearance claims early on though. Factor claims a 57mm clearance, something which I decided to put to the test early on by fitting a set of 2.25” Maxxis Aspens. The rear swallowed this fine, and the stiffness is sufficient that it wouldn’t have caused me any worry, but the fork, while wide enough, wasn’t tall enough to cope with a tyre that measured 57.6mm on my calipers.

Factor says it’s all based around the Continental Dubnital (or Race King, as it was during development), and while a 57mm Dubnital might fit (I don’t have one to hand so cannot check), the fact a 57mm Maxxis doesn’t leads me to conclude that 57mm isn’t a true clearance for the bike. You'll get a 55 in, but you’ll have so little room for mud buildup I suggest you just run 50s as it comes and leave it at that, unless you swap to something very low profile like a Schwalbe G-One RS Pro.

I’ll delve into the geometry a little more in depth later, but as well as being the most aero gravel bike we’ve tested it’s also the most aggressive in terms of geometry. The designers wanted to keep that back end as short as possible, which they have achieved to their credit with a 423mm chainstay; quite something with the ability to cram a 57mm tyre in at the back. This, combined with a 72.3º head angle and a correspondingly steep 74.5º seat tube angle make it the most aggressively angled gravel machine I’ve personally come across. This, as you might expect, lends it quite a sporty handling.

Rather unusually, it retains the ability to run 2x, something very much against the grain. Factor says this is because it doesn’t want to limit its riders to one or other system, but I cannot remember the last time I saw anyone racing gravel on a 2x and I can’t help but feel this is something of a redundant feature. If you want to use it as a road bike, or an all-road bike perhaps, then I will admit I prefer 2x gearing, but it will limit your tyre capacity, which will then hamstring you on the proper gravel for which this bike was designed.

Given we know already that it is more aero than any other gravel bike I shan’t over egg the pudding. It’s clearly designed with aerodynamics in mind, with the fork being the most obvious example, and it’s worked. The fork, interestingly, was a late addition, added after full carbon prototypes had already been produced for wind tunnel validation and we saw these in testing in the real world, too. During testing with a more normal fork the designers crammed a fork from the ONE into the frame to see how it would affect the aero, found it was measurably faster, and had to redesign the front end to accommodate. It is, I am told, a different fork entirely to the ONE, despite looking the same. The latter has a bayonet fastening for one thing, but the lowers are different, designed to be optimal at the slightly slower gravel speeds.

Despite a fork that a child could easily play Hot Wheels on, the whole bike weighs not very much. My size 56 with SRAM Force tipped the scales at 8.76kg, with a single bottle cage, but no pedals; which was exactly the same as the Fara GR4 I tested just before it, which had the same tyres, too. In terms of spec you can have Force like me, Red if you’re feeling particularly flush, or the new Campagnolo Record. Sorry, Shimano, nothing here for you.

As is often a gold star in the Factor copy book, you can spec the Elara pretty well at point of sale. Two seatpost setback options (0mm or 20mm) are outdone by three crank lengths, and these both pale in comparison to the 21 cockpit options, spanning 36cmx80mm up to 40cmx140mm. 36 x 140 is about as aggressive as you’d probably want to go unless you’re going very much outside the norm, but the steerer is round so you're not completely restricted and aftermarket options may work.

Geometry

The Elara is about as aggressive as gravel bikes get from a geometry point of view. It’s not miles more so than the likes of the new Specialized Crux, but overlaying the two on Bikeinsights.com (a great site for sure) we can see that the Elara is steeper in the head tube and seat tube by 0.8º and 0.5º respectively. It’s 2mm shorter in the chainstays, 2mm lower in the bottom bracket, has a 4mm shorter wheelbase and a 7mm longer reach. It has a 3.6mm lower trail figure in the fork, too. These are all modest numbers in comparative terms but I back the Cyclingnews audience to understand the impact the aggregation of modest changes can make.

Now, I haven’t ridden the latest Crux, so for a little more context I also ran the numbers versus the Fara GR4, which I sent back a couple of days before the Factor arrived at the office. I very much enjoyed the GR4, but compared to the Elara the numbers are very different. The Elara is 1.1º steeper in the head tube, 0.8º in the seat tube, 10mm lower in stack, 2mm longer in reach, and a 19mm longer wheelbase that is primarily derived from a 4mm greater fork rake and the slacker head tube. Happily, to confirm the numbers do actually mean something, I can say they feel like very different bikes.

My colleague, Josh, is a vocal proponent of the fact the Crux would make a great do-everything machine with a set of road wheels. In theory I don’t doubt it, and in theory the Elara would be an even better candidate, with geometry a hair closer to road bikes and a superior aero package. I object to this on geometry grounds more than anything else; gravel bikes may be able to hack it on the road with the right tyres in terms of just going fast enough, but they don’t feel like a road bike. Looking at the difference, just visually, between the Elara and Factor’s Ostro VAM road bike it’s clear to see they’ll feel noticeably different on the tarmac. However, later on I’ll slap some road wheels in the Elara and report back as to whether my preconceptions have been shattered, as everyone loves a bit of low level tension in a bike review.

Performance

If you want the full deep dive into the aero numbers then I implore you to read Josh’s run down of our wind tunnel testing. The short version is that The Elara is the fastest gravel bike we tested as a bike only, and with the margins of error it could lay claim to being the fastest with a rider, too. It’s rapid, but with a rider it’s basically indistinguishable from the Crux and the Wilier Rave. Taking into account the fact it has much larger tyres, the fact that it’s only 10.45 watts more draggy as a bike only than the old Look Blade, a WorldTour level road race bike, is really quite impressive.

This is also borne out on the road; it’s wicked fast. Part of this is, I’m sure, down to the superior aerodynamics, but on that front it’s not necessarily faster than the Crux or Rave. It feels fast though, and I think that comes down to a combination of stiffness and geometry. That really tight, snappy rear end and steep front make it feel like a road bike when you’re off-road, and while the rear end is actually pretty comfy in relative terms, the front end is very stiff indeed, meaning you get plenty of feedback that makes you feel like you’re hammering along. On flat sections it’s sensational, and the systemic stiffness from the frame, wheels and cockpit means it gobbles up sprints with only the tyres protesting every now and then.

One thing I did notice was that the very short back end had a tendency to leave the ground when really going hard over dried out shallow puddle craters. Not to the point I’d have to back off, but enough to pick slightly different lines sometimes or lean into it and get a little airtime for the whole bike (a very little, this isn’t Red Bull Rampage). It’s something I notice sometimes when doing hill sprints on very tight road bikes, but not something I've ever come across in a gravel bike.

Josh criticised the ONE for being too stiff in the front end, something I also knocked the Incolor SSR for, and while it’s hard to compare those to the Elara the front end stiffness here is moderated to a great degree by the 50mm tyre in the fork. I needed to dial the tyre pressures in more than usual here, and I estimate I was 5-7psi less than I’d normally run, but once it was all on-song it wasn’t an uncomfortable place to ride. It’s less comfy than the Fara GR4, and if I was personally doing a 7hr gravel event I think I’d be erring on the side of comfort, but if you want something that feels razor sharp and don’t mind a bit of fatigue at the end of the day you’ll be alright. In an ideal world I think I would run the tyre pressures lower still, but in order to do that comfortably where I live I’d need tyre inserts.

That tight geometry pays dividends in twisty sections, and it actually puts me more in mind of an old school cyclocross bike in many ways, except without the unstable high bottom bracket. It’s beautifully nimble, with a bottom bracket that’s low enough to not make it feel unbalanced. Like a cx bike it’s also a little twitchy when the going gets slippy, something gravel bikes with longer, more stable geometry don’t suffer with. If you’re happy playing fast and loose sometimes when things get slick then you’ll be absolutely fine, and it’s actually quite a lot of fun if you know what to expect, but it’s a different experience to many other gravel bikes in this regard.

Descending is exhilarating, again as a result of the geometry. It’s not necessarily what I’d call confidence inspiring, but if you’re already confident it’s very rewarding. The cockpit is a lovely place to lock into in the drops to slam down a gulley, and while it is a little twitchy it’s stable enough until you get to steep MTB-lite trails. For gravel racing courses it’ll be absolutely golden, which is what it was designed for after all.

In much the same way as I found the Ridley Noah to be a surprisingly good climber, I had the same experience here, though to say ‘surprisingly’ good is perhaps doing it a disservice. The steeper seat tube and position that’s more over the front of the bike mean rear end traction on steeper stuff is great as you can stay seated for longer. It also means there’s more traction on the front tyre in cornering, and if you get your tyres pressures right it’s really very good here, too.

While it’s a very good performer, I was actually struck by how un-extreme it felt in many situations. It looks wild, but I think I’d rather have this as a general use gravel bike than the Factor Aluto; it’s more capable on rough ground and so in my view is better as a gravel bike, it’s faster, and it feels less of an impediment on road, meaning it makes a better surrogate road bike if you must do that, but more importantly for me it makes the transition phases of a gravel ride that must be spent on tarmac feel engaging still, which is a huge bonus.

While I haven't had the opportunity to test the wheels independently they're certainly on-trend and bang up to date. Having smashed them about on some extremely rocky descents I can attest that they're pretty sure-footed, and considering the giant size of the forks in which they sit I didn't find them too blustery in crosswinds either. They're also the fastest wheels as per our latest wind tunnel test of gravel wheels, so it's very hard to fault them from a performance standpoint. We did use the Elara as the test rig, so there is the caveat that they may will have been designed in tandem with the frame, but still... fast wheels.

The Factor Elara as a road bike

Can you use an aero gravel bike as a road bike, freeing you from the burden of owning a beautiful racy road bike and allowing you the pleasure of constantly swapping wheels? You can, obviously. But should you?

Well, I slapped on a set of the Only SRAM wheels I had at my disposal, a pair of Zipp 202NSW climbing wheels (sub-optimal in terms of vibes I think it's fair to say) making the poor Elara look like it's skipped leg day in the gym. In an ideal world I'd have fit a set of 42mm road tyres to them from the latest crop, something I'm told Romain Bardet does with his Elara, but time is of the essence so 30mm GP5000s will have to do.

Does it work? Well, as with all good results the answer is a bit of yes and no. It feels fine, though perhaps a little low slung on such comparatively skinny tyres. It handles absolutely fine and you really do feel in many respects (especially along the flat and non-technical riding) that you could just be on an aero road bike, especially looking down at that fork crown. Sprints, too, are a delight. It's so stiff for a gravel bike that it just eats up high wattage efforts with ease, but isn't so stiff that its hugely uncomfortable on tarmac either.

The main drawbacks come in terms of handling. Having hopped back onto the Elara after a wonderful road ride aboard the new Look 795 Blade RS, a bike with a gorgeously sharp front end, riding the Elara on the road still feels really quite slack. The rear end helps keep things snappy but it still feels in many respects like being on a (admittedly very fast) endurance bike with quite leisurely geometry. This will afflict all gravel bikes used as road bikes in my view, and in fairness the Factor is the best of the bunch on the tarmac, but don't kid yourself that you'll be getting a proper road bike experience just by swapping the wheels.

Forget the 2x, but with 42mm slicks on it would be a pretty sensational all-road machine, able to stay fast and still get up to mischief.

Value

With SRAM Red the Elara is a full £1,400 (or $2,000) cheaper than an S-Works Crux, but £1,850 (or $1,500) dearer than a similarly equipped non-S-Works machine. In the guise I tested, with SRAM Force, it’s not really comparing like with like. The Elara with Force is basically the same as with Red, just with a different groupset, whereas the Force tier Crux has worse wheels to drop the price further still.

Comparing framesets the Factor is more expensive by £650 (or $800), but you get a cockpit here, so they’re roughly equivalent. My feeling is that the S-Works Crux is a little overpriced, but the standard Crux, in Red tier at least, is a slightly more compelling offering than the Elara, but there isn’t a great deal in it, and considering the options you can spec on the Elara vs the Crux it might actually tip the balance in favour of the Elara.

In this tier, with a Force groupset, it's a a slightly harder value proposition. You do get the superior aerodynamics, and you do get the fastest wheels, but is it $1,500 better than the Fara GR4, which weighs the same though has (presumably) worse aerodynamics, or $1k better than the Argon18 Anti Matter, that comes with a dedicated frame bag and a similar weight? I think if you're actually entering a series of gravel events and trying to do well in them then it might be, I'm less convinced, and I think most of that price differential is all in the wheels.

Verdict

If you want a gravel race bike then this absolutely has to be up for consideration. It is certainly not as fit for fast adventuring as the likes of the Fara GR4 in my view, but as a single minded machine it fulfils the brief exceptionally well without being so specialised in its purpose that it alienates a great proportion of the user base, as I suspect is the case with the ONE. It's actually a hell of a lot of fun to ride on the proviso you like your handling extremely sharp, and if ever there was a case for a gravel bike to be used also as a road bike it's probably this one, though I remain unconvinced on geometry grounds.

I do think if you aren't actually racing gravel, and are just after a gravel bike to smash about on very fast, then the Crux or GR4 might be a better generalist, depending on your choice of geometry. Comfort is a factor here, and over rough ground fatigue sets in earlier than with other machines, and if you're targeting particularly rough courses and you really want to max that tyre capacity out then you may want to look to something like the new Canyon Grail that can actually take a 57mm tyre in the front.

Reusser (Switzerland) beat Backstedt (Great Britain) by 40 seconds, while third-place Franziska Koch (Germany) finished 6 seconds behind Backstedt.

This new bike has some very eye-catching design features. The front end is the most distinctive, as Canyon has adopted a wide-legged double crown fork design that draws visual comparisons to Hope's HB.T track bike.

The fork 'legs' extend up past the bike's headtube to create a radical-looking front end that we assume is designed to control airflow around the rider and their legs.

The bike's engineer, Lukas Schuchnigg, the same man responsible for Canyon's Speedmax CFR track machine, spoke exclusively to Cyclingnews to explain more about the decision to go with that radical front-end design, as well as how much faster this new Speedmax is compared to the existing one.

Canyon launched a new Speedmax CFR triathlon bike earlier in the year, but this bike is a new standalone UCI-compliant TT version that has been designed with pro riders in mind. Canyon told me its development timeline runs to around two and a half years.

Different Speedmax models were used during the world's time trial events, which makes comparisons even easier.

From the above pictures, it's easy to see that the new bike has a totally new fork profile as well as a blind dropout. Canyon explained that two new patents had been registered that pertain to the new fork leg design; UCI ruling changes also allowed them to navigate existing Hope track frame patents for similar fork leg profiles.

The fork legs, which also feature an integrated timing chip mount, are clear for all to see and represent the biggest difference. But there's also a deeper headtube, as well as a narrower toptube.

An aero bottle goes with the frame and looks similar to the design of the Colnago TT1 with its squared-off, integrated design.

The chainstays and dropout shape on the new bike are also different, and the upper seatpost also shows a small change. A lot has been altered on this new model.

The new bikes feature 'CFR' logos on the top tube, Canyon's top-flight bike category, and a 'Prototype' UCI seat tube frame sticker can also be seen.

The aero water bottle is marked 'Aerofuel TT' whilst Canyon currently offers a magnetic 'Fuel' aero bottle; this one is a brand-new component.

Developing a new Speedmax

On the development of the new bike, Canyon explained that there wasn't much room for progression when it came to the new Speedmax. It explained that the bike was essentially maxed out and very similar performance-wise to its competitors.

The answer for Canyon and Schuchnigg was what they call the double crown front forks to direct airflow around a rider's legs, for improved aerodynamic performance.

The brand started seeing gains by widening the fork legs, but changing UCI rules put a limit on just how much they could do. The bike, across many dimensions, butts right up against several UCI rules now.

"We increased the fork legs, made them higher, made them wider, and we found out that by putting the fork legs and the spacer set up in the same line, there was a lot to improve there.

"This was almost two years ago from now, and then by the beginning of this year, a new UCI rule was implemented. There was a limit on the inner width of the fork legs. Before that, actually, our concept was to go even wider because we saw a wider setup actually was faster." Schuchnigg explained.

Part of the aero gains come from the wide fork legs, which deflect air around the outside of a rider's legs. The leg profiles change at the rear trailing edge; they are a lot wider at the top section, and this helps control that airflow around the legs.

How much faster is it?

Canyon claim at worst this Speedmax is five watts better than the previous bike, rising to around eight watts depending on the rider. It sounds like the wide fork leg design will benefit every rider and won't make certain body shapes slower.

The brand told me it's optimised for 50km/h, and that they tested with a full-body mannequin as well as with real riders. Marlen Reusser is said to have logged some highly impressive 12-hour shifts in the wind tunnel during development.

The aero bottle is also new; it's a push-fit unit and must only mount to one frame tube to fall within the UCI rules. It's designed to be used with the bike at all times, and the frame is faster with it.

Stability has also been a key consideration, and the new Canyon tri bars are said to play a part in this. The new extensions will be offered in two lengths, and Schuchnigg told me riders are choosing shorter extensions now to unlock more aero, tucked-in positions.

The more integrated handlebar arrangement apparantly provides a handling boost and promotes front-end stability, according to the pros.

The bike is slated to officially launch in Spring 2027, so we can expect to see it being ridden in even more pro races from early next year.

Like a lot of gravel bikes being launched right now, such as the Factor Elara and the Scott Addict gravel, the new 3rd generation Grail is a dedicated big-clearance, aero-focused gravel race machine.

We spotted what we believed to be this bike in prototype form at The Traka back in late April, speculating at the time whether the Grail would be joining the big gravel tyre club. We know now the answer to that question is a resounding yes.

As it did with the Grail RIFT, Canyon has flirted with its own embargo and has also been teasing this bike for over a week on social media, and by now, most will know the new Grail has arrived.

The Grail, regarded as one of the best gravel bikes for several years, was starting to stand out for its conservative official max tyre clearance of 42mm. Whilst there's nothing wrong with running a 42mm tyre, things are only going one way when it comes to gravel race bike tyre sizes and trends.

Now, it seems Canyon has answered in kind with 57mm tyre clearance front and rear.

The new bike isn't quite as light as the Gen 2 model. Canyon quotes 989 grams for a raw, medium-sized frame, 1095 for a CF SLX model and 1128 for a CF. It does make the point that overall the bikes are faster than the previous one, though.

There's more than just tyre clearance to go over here, though. We have all the new bike details, have logged several test rides on the new bike, and have verified the max claimed tyre clearance ourselves for you.

The 3rd generation Canyon Grail

We'll stay on tyre clearance for just a little longer. The Grail has 57mm clearance now, with a claimed 4mm ISO clearance around the tyre. Everyone will be happy, and the spec sheet will look good, but I get a slight feeling when listening to Canyon speak about the bike that it's still not completely on board with the big tyre philosophy.

It sounds like the clearance was partly just boosted because it was requested by pro riders like Rosa Klöser, who insisted that her future gravel bike would have to have big tyre clearances, and not because the brand was all in on big tyres.

Canyon says it 'watched, waited and listened whilst the internet debated whether wider tyres make you faster'.

The brand says the Grail was intended to be 2x compatible, which would have held clearance to a maximum 50mm figure, but riders like Klöser demanded bigger numbers.

To execute the 57mm clearance, Canyon has used a thin yet completely solid section of drive-side chainstay; it's the same workaround Lauf uses in its Seigla frame, which also has the same clearance number.

Bikes will come fitted with 45mm tyres. Canyon calls this a 'baseline from which riders can explore'. There will also be no suspension-equipped 'RIFT' models in the range. The brand explained that the large-volume tyres will take care of further off-road smoothing duties.

Canyon has also created a tyre pressure setup calculator with Pirelli, which can be found within the Canyon app to help riders dial in their optimal tyre pressures.

Aero testing

It's clear to see from looking at the Grail that aerodynamic performance has been a consideration, and it's a factor for any competitive gravel race bike launching right now.

Canyon makes the point that the longer you are racing, the more aero matters. This will certainly be a factor in events like the Traka 360.

The brand has tested at 35km/h, which it says is real-world gravel race pace. Testing occurred at the GST Wind tunnel in Immenstadt, Germany, and the brand uses a moving-leg dummy to replicate a rider's pedalling motion.

Let's start with a question many will want to know: how much faster is it than the old bike? A 3rd Gen Grail with 40,45, and 55mm tyres is faster than a Gen 2 bike with 40mm rubber. By up to 6.3 watts.

Canyon also tested against some competitors and listed them, something not every brand does when comparing to the competition.

You can see the table for yourself above, but the Gen 3 bike was faster by a few watts than the Rose Backroad FF, Factor Ostro Gravel and Cervélo Aspero.

Canyon tested each bike model with the same wheelset, leg model, and 45mm tyres. The wheels had a spec of 50mm depth, 27mm internal width, and 38.5mm external width.

Aside from aero testing, there's scope for rolling resistance to offer greater gains off-road; certain 50mm+ tyres can offer their own rewards when combined with the right tyre pressures off-road. The Grail's new clearance will allow riders to take advantage of those gains too.

Features and geometry

Canyon says that the Grail was well regarded in the handling department and didn't want to mess with its handling formula.

The bike's wheelbase has been extended by 10mm to accommodate the big tyres, and the chainstays are 10mm longer, but the brand says the 'handling dynamics remain the same as on the Gen 2 Grail' and the head and seat tube angles are the same.

The stack has changed and has been lowered by 15mm 'in response to gravel racing's rising speeds'; the reach number is the same, and shorter stems are specced on bikes. For instance, a medium arrives with an 80mm stem.

This generation of the Grail in CFR and CF SLX models has also received the Canyon Pace bar technology. This provides simple handlebar width and height adjustment of 50 and 20mm respectively.

Bikes arrive with Canyon Control handlebar drops, but these can be removed and switched out for several alternative options. Adjustable bar widths range from 370mm to 420mm.

There's also a new seatpost in the form of the SP0093 VCLS (vertical comfort lateral stiffness) unit, an aero-profiled post which Canyon says provides 25% more compliance than a rigid unit. Canyon also claims it offers the same amount of deflection regardless of a rider's seatpost height.

The frame uses a PF86 bottom bracket standard, primarily for clearance and stiffness according to the brand.

There are also some new frame storage bags for the Grail from the Bavarian brand Cyclite. Canyon has developed lightweight, top tube and frame storage bags for the Grail whch save a couple of hundred grams over the previous bags; they also don't affect aero performance much.

A few features aren't on every model. Load downtube storage can only be found on the CFR and CF SLX models, and the Fast Fender mounts don't feature on the CFR model.

Another new release comes from Canyon in the form of a new pair of carbon wheels from the brand. Canyon launched its own range of carbon wheels with the Grizl gravel machine last year.

The new 50 CF wheels will come on the CF 7 and CF SLX models, or retail on their own for €999. Spec-wise, the wheels have a 27mm internal width and 38.5mm external width. The 50mm rims are laced onto DT Swiss 350 hubs, and the overall weight is a claimed 1675 grams.

Initial riding impressions

I reviewed the previous-gen Grail, attended the launch of the suspension-equipped Grail RIFT and raced the Traka 100 on it.

I’m familiar with the Grail platform, and I really like it. Until now, I have considered the Grail a performance gravel bike that’s a strong all-rounder, user-friendly and fun to ride.

When I saw the new Grail, whilst I thought it looked good with its aero tube shapes and chunkier aero seatpost, I was hopeful that the previous Grail’s nimbleness hadn’t been done away with, despite the brand saying the geometry numbers and ride characteristics were very similar, though the Gen 3 bike is 15mm lower at the front.

Canyon sent me a Grail CF SLX 8 AXS model to ride in the eye-catching Strawberry Shake colourway. The bike as pictured comes in at €5,499, and my size small test model came in at 9kg out of the box with two bottle cages, a frame storage bag and tools, frame bags and sealant.

After my first ride on the bike, my fears had been largely allayed. In short, the Grail still feels like a Grail. The solid handling and manoeuvrability are still there; it's not just a point-and-shoot straight-line aero machine.

It's a little heavier; my size small at 9kg isn't exactly featherlight, but it doesn't feel like it holds the bike back particularly.

I don't feel much vibration damping from the aero VCLS seatpost, which I am also testing on the road with the latest Endurace; fans of the brand's older round leaf spring style VCLS post of old may be left wanting, and for me, that post did provide more compliance.

The ride is without a doubt solid, fast where it's needed and capable in the techy sections. The overall ride hasn't set my soul alight yet, though. This bike has been designed with speed in mind; I want to see what it's like to live with as a general gravel machine.

The bikes come stock with Schwalbe G-One R 45mm tyres, but I have fitted some 2.2" Continental Dubnital tyres to check clearances for myself, and can verify the big rubber does fit comfortably. Certainly more easily in the front than on the Factor Elara we recently tested. So if you want to go up to 57mm, you can.

Specs and pricing

Six Grail bikes will be available across three frame tiers: CF, CF SLX and the top-tier CFR bike. Two models will be available in each frame version, and there are eight colourways to choose from.

Access to the new range starts with the base CF 7 model, which starts at €2,499 / £2,499 for a Shimano GRX 610 mechanical groupset-equipped bike with Newmen wheels.

The CF CLX tier bikes start at €4,999 / £4,799 with SRAM Force XPLR and DT Swiss GRC 1400 wheels.

The top-spec CFR bikes start at €6,500 / £6,200 for a Shimano GRX R825 build with DT Swiss GRC 1100 wheels, and rise to €8,000 / £7,600 for the top-spec SRAM Red XPLR-equipped bike with the same wheelset.

The Cyclite bags are available separately; the Cyclite top tube bag costs €69,99 and the midloader bag €124,99.

Something to note: the CF bikes don't come with a frame storage hatch, and the CFR bikes do not have Canyon integrated fender mounts for the fast fit system.

GB is one of the last major nations to announce its line-ups for the eight days of racing that begin this coming Sunday, but it has now revealed what performance director Stephen Park describes as "a highly competitive squad".

Tom Pidcock leads the line in the elite men's road race, the 27-year-old star a genuine contender in a field blown open by the absence of the reigning champion Tadej Pogačar.

Adam Yates, a decorated hilly Classics rider and a teammate of Pogačar's at UAE Team Emirates-XRG, will also enjoy a protected leadership role, while the rest of the squad is geared towards support roles.

Oscar Onley has been included after placing fifth overall at the Vuelta a España, as has a breakout star from the Spanish Grand Tour, Callum Thornley, who came within a whisker of winning the stage 18 time trial.

National road race champion Fred Wright has made the boat, as have Mark Donovan, Finlay Pickering, and James Shaw.

Ethan Hayter, who almost beat Pogačar to win the short opening time trial at the Vuelta, has also been included in the elite men's squad but only for the time trial, where Thornley will take the other of the two spots.

As for the elite women's squad, Backstedt takes aim at both the road race and the time trial as she steps up to the elite level for the first time at the World Championships. Still only 21, she pulled off the junior road race and time trial world title double in 2022, and she won the U23 time trial world title last year. Now, she steps up to lead the line at the highest level.

Backstedt is joined in the elite women's road race squad by Lauren Dickson, who has impressed in the service of Demi Vollering at FDJ United-SUEZ this season, and by the former Paris-Roubaix podium finisher Pfeiffer Georgi. Josie Nelson, Flora Perkins, and Anna Henderson round out the six-woman road race squad.

Despite being the Olympic silver medallist in the discipline, Henderson will not take the second time trial spot alongside Bäckstedt; instead that goes to a surprise selection in Anna Morris. The Welshwoman is primarily known for her exploits on the track and doesn't ride for an international road team, but was second in the national championships time trial in June and has earned a call-up to her first Road World Championships at the age of 31.

The big British prospect, Cat Ferguson returns to action after a long injury lay-off to target rainbow jerseys in the U23 ranks. Ferguson did the road race - time trial double at junior level in 2024, two years after Bäckstedt, and turned pro with Movistar the following year.

Her 2026 campaign started strongly, but she has not raced since fracturing her ankle on the opening day of the Giro d'Italia Women in late May.

In the men's U23 ranks, Ben Wiggins will ride the time trial as well as the road race, where Elliot Rowe, who was the best young rider at the recent Tour of Britain, is one to watch.

Great Britain's squad in full

Elite Men 

• Mark Donovan   
• Ethan Hayter (time trial only)
• Oscar Onley   
• Finlay Pickering  
• Tom Pidcock   
• James Shaw  
• Callum Thornley (road race + time trial)
• Fred Wright   
• Adam Yates 

Elite Women  

• Zoe Bäckstedt (road race + time trial)
• Lauren Dickson  
• Pfeiffer Georgi  
• Anna Henderson  
• Anna Morris (time trial only)
• Josie Nelson 
• Flora Perkins  

U23 Men  

• Jacob Bush  
• Mattie Dodd  
• Elliot Rowe  
• Will Smith  
• Ben Wiggins   

U23 Women  

• Cat Ferguson  
• Abi Miller  
• Awen Roberts  
• Imogen Wolff  
• Morven Yeoman  

Junior Men  

• Leon Atkins  
• Gus Dutton  
• Finlay Storrie  
• Dexter Townsend  
• Evander Wishart  

Junior Women  

• Aalia Clay  
• Peggy Knox  
• Gabby McHugh  
• Zoe Roche  
• Melanie Rowe 

Subscribe to Cyclingnews for comprehensive race coverage of both the UCI Road and Gravel World Championships, alongside the final monument of the season, Il Lombardia. Subscribers get unlimited access to exclusive analysis from our expert columnists, in-depth features and industry-leading tech insight. Plus, the Cyclingnews app lets you follow the action wherever you go! Join today.

Previously a race bike for the masses, with a focus on versatility, clearance for 35mm rubber and a reasonably relaxed geometry, the updated Melee v2 is a complete shift in mindset for the American brand, one that signals a clear intent to sponsor a WorldTour team.

Enve says it focused on improving "the two things that matter most in modern road racing – weight and aerodynamics."

So it's not all in on aero at the expense of other things like weight, and you'd still call it an aero all-rounder, but it's definitely spent more than a token few minutes in the wind tunnel during its development.

In fact, the shape of the tubes put me in mind of the last two Specialized Tarmacs, with deep sections up front for aero, and skinny tubes out back for weight.

That shrunken maximum tyre clearance is now 33 mm, so still in line with many of its go-faster competitors, and Enve's claim that a 56cm SRAM Red model will hit 6.8kg seems legit, since our test bike was exactly that model and size in the Ultralight Black colourway, and weighed just 6.73kg.

But what about Enve's other claims of 'benchmark-setting aerodynamics'? Well, this is Cyclingnews, so you can bet we've had it in the wind tunnel, so let's find out.

The protocol

To make the comparisons as fair and accurate as possible, we followed the same protocols used in all of our other road bike wind tunnel tests.

These are best explained in our aero bike shootout in 2025, for those who want to understand it in full. Here, though, I'll outline the topline points.

We test every bike in three ways:

1. Bike only:

Firstly, we test the bike on its own, with its stock wheelset. We swap the front tyre so that every bike is tested with the same tyre, and we ensure bikes are set up in the same position, with the same saddle, no pedals, and the same two bottles.

This lets us compare each bike against the others with maximum accuracy, offering a really good comparison of how the bike interacts with the airflow before we introduce the movement of pedalling legs.

2. With a rider:

Since no bike is ever ridden without a cyclist, we then put a cyclist (me) onto the bike.

This lets us see how aero the bike is under a more realistic set of conditions, with the movement of the pedalling legs and the interaction therein, as well as with the airflow moving past the handlebars and onto the rider's body.

This is more realistic, but less accurate. The error margin was 3.7 watts on the day of testing the Melee, which is greater than the difference between some bikes, so we always ensure to test in both ways to help our readers make fair comparisons.

3. Bike only, control wheels

We then fit a 'control' wheelset to the bike and re-test it without a rider. This lets us compare the aero credentials of the frame, fork, cockpit and so on, rather than letting the results be skewed by the wheels that come with each of the bikes.

Some aerodynamic frames are sold with really 'slow' wheels, which many riders might then choose to upgrade. Whereas some slow frames are sold with 'fast' wheels. Understanding this helps our readers make better buying decisions, especially when coupled with our separate wind tunnel road bike wheel tests.

As a bonus, this test also allows us to understand how each bike's stock wheelset compares to the others by comparing their respective differences to the control wheelset.

Each of the above three tests is made up of seven different sub-tests, whereby we measure at seven different wind angles, technically known as 'Yaw Angles'. These are -15°, -10°, -5°, 0°, 5°, 10° and 15°. See my wonderfully curated gif below if you're confused.

For every test, the wind is blown at 40km/h (a smidge shy of 25mph). We measure for 10 seconds for the bike-only tests, and 30 seconds for the rider-on-bike tests.

We normalise everything else as closely to the real-world application of each bike as possible, within sensible reason. That means the fit of each bike is set up the same, with the same front tyre, and we always put the bike in the same gear.

We also ensure that all bikes are tested with two bottle cages, and we use the same Elite Vico cages with Elite Fly bottles. However, if a bike comes with aero cages and/or aero bottles, we use them.

My reason for this is that if you buy a bike that comes with aero cages, you're unlikely to remove them in favour of less aero cages. We have done a separate test comparing standard round bottles and traditional cages versus aero bottles to understand the differences.

So if you are planning to swap to round bottles, that piece should help you understand how much there is to be gained or lost.

And most importantly, every time we go to the wind tunnel, we start and end the day by testing an old Trek Emonda ALR – my old winter training bike – as a 'baseline' to compare against. This bike remains completely unchanged between tests, and thus lets us make fair comparisons between the new bikes tested on different days, even if the ambient conditions change.

The results

Bike only

It's a pretty impressive start for Enve, with the 2026 Melee tracking pretty close to the fastest bike we've ever tested, the Factor One.

By the way the line is almost 'seagull'-shaped, rather than V-shaped, we can see how the bike utilises the sail effect to harness the wind as it comes from wider angles, rather than simply adding drag.

Once we've processed that raw data and then compared it to the drag of the baseline bike, we can see that the new Melee is 36.56 watts more aerodynamically efficient. That puts it in the ballpark of some dedicated aero bikes and ahead of a lot of its aero-all-rounder competition.

Given the Melee tipped our scales at 6.73kg (with no pedals, two empty cages), that's pretty impressive. However, when you add a rider into the mix, things get even more impressive.

With rider

This is a really impressive-looking performance for Enve. The way the graph tracks closely to the Factor One but then dips when it gets to the wider yaw angles of +/ -15°, shows a bike that is really able to harness the wind, even with a rider on the bike.

However, It's important to remember that we are comparing against the Trek Emonda on each given day of testing, and as we can see in the graph above, the testing conditions in 2026 were slightly faster than in 2025. This could be due to the air pressure or the temperature on each testing day, or simply due to fluctuations in my weight.

So even though the Enve's raw CdA figures are slightly lower than the Factor's, when we compare against the baseline bike on the respective testing days, the Factor still comes out marginally better, as we will see below.

A genuinely impressive performance here for Enve, coming in at 25.91W better than our baseline Trek Emonda. That's just 1.66 watts slower than the Cervélo S5, which edged ahead of the Factor to become the fastest of all time, after we apply the appropriate weightings and average out the seven yaw angles.

With our error margin taken into account, the Melee can even lay claim to victory, but given it weighs around a kilogram lighter than the two dedicated aero machines ahead of it, Enve will be calling this a win even without that technicality.

Control wheels

Given our 'control' wheels are a pair of Enve SES 4.5s, and the 2026 Melee comes with a pair of the newer Enve wheels (which haven't yet been released, but have been all over our TV screens all summer underneath Tadej Pogačar), it's no surprise to see the bike get slower when we swapped them over.

I've left the result of the newer stock wheel in the graph to make for easier comparisons, but the biggest takeaway is that they are both faster across all wind angles, and that they start to sail between 10 and 15°.

Comparing all of the bikes we've tested with the control wheel against the baseline bike, the top of the table is a who's who of dedicated aero machines, transitioning down to the aero-all-rounders.

The Factor One still wins out, followed closely by the Incolor SSR (a new bike to the list, which we'll be doing a deeper dive into in a few weeks).

The 2026 Melee sits mid-table, which might seem like an average result, but for a sub-6.8 kg bike to hold its own against some dedicated aero bikes like the Cube Litening Aero and Felt Nexar is a strong showing. And it's nigh-on seven watts better than its predecessor, just from the frame, fork and cockpit (remember, this is with the same wheelset).

To reiterate the point made earlier, it's hardly surprising that the new Enve wheels that come with the bike are faster than the older Enve wheels that we use as our 'control', but to put a number on 'how much faster', the graph above compares the two bike-only tests.

It shows a 2.68w deficit. Only beaten by the Vision Metron wheels on the Felt Nexar and the Scope Artech 6 wheels on the latest Look Blade 795 RS.

The conclusions

Enve says the Melee is "engineered for riders who demand the absolute best in lightweight performance and speed," and that it "builds on the foundation" of the original, versatile Melee, to "deliver a truly world-class, benchmark WorldTour-level race bike."

That's obviously marketing speak 101, but based on our data, it's not far-fetched to conclude – or at least believe – that Enve has achieved what it set out to achieve.

The Melee v2 not only sits third in our with-rider leaderboard, but it does so while also tipping the scales at under 6.8kg. The bike only tests push it a little further down the order, but still within the error margin of true go-fast bikes like the Y1Rs and the S5.

It's a very strong showing for the brand, especially for its second-ever road bike (ignoring the Fray all-road bike).

The only unanswered question that remains is which WorldTour team the brand is hoping to work with. Its deal with the not-actually-WorldTour Team TotalEnergies ended a couple of years ago, so Enve's foray into the pro peloton was a short-lived one, but this launch is a clear signal of its intent to return.

With both Merida and Factor missing from the WorldTour too, competition looks fierce for the few teams not locked into long-term partnerships.

If you want to see real bike tech, where cycling actually starts to resemble a motorsport paddock with things like tuned mass dampers, data acquisition rigs, chassis compliance, advanced suspension and more, you really need to check out the gravity disciplines in mountain bike racing.

Downhill, since its roots in the mid '90s, has always been a hotbed of innovation. Many of the things we take for granted on modern mountain bikes, like disc brakes, full suspension and progressive geometry, all started in the pursuit of speed down a hillside.

The tracks are three to five minutes of controlled violence over rock gardens, roots, and braking bumps that would shake a normal bike and rider to pieces. To survive that, let alone win it, teams have to optimise bikes to not only be fast, tuned to the trail, and adaptable to rider preferences, but also make it to the bottom of the hill in one piece.

This has created an atmosphere of constant development and testing, with a broader scope for improvement than in the WorldTour, much like motorsports.

Now, granted, the amount of money a cycling team has to spend is pennies compared to their Formula 1 cousins, but that has only furthered the innovation, as teams, mechanics, and engineers have relied on ingenuity and clever solutions to tricky technical problems.

Weight in the wrong place, on purpose

Santa Cruz Syndicate are one of the leading teams in modern downhill, with all of their riders in the top 5 at the recent Val Di Sole World Championships, and lead rider Jackson Goldstone grabbed his second rainbow jersey too.

I was lucky enough to be shown around their team truck by team manager Rob Copeland to see how they optimise their V10 bikes for race weekend.

Start with something that sounds like it shouldn't work: adding weight to make a bike faster. In the WorldTour, mass has long been the enemy of speed. Riders and teams go to extraordinary lengths and spend a lot to drop a few grams. In downhill, some of the world's fastest riders do the opposite, deliberately adding weight to their bikes.

The Syndicate team has three different ways to add weight, all in and around the bottom bracket area. By positioning the mass low and central, suspended between the axles, it gives the bike a "planted" feeling under load. That's not an accident of language, it's the same principle a chassis engineer uses when deciding where to hang a fuel tank or battery pack in a race car.

The aim is to keep mass as close to the centre of the wheelbase as possible, keep the polar moment of inertia low, and keep handling calm and predictable.

It's in how you add weight that shows the level of development at the top of the MTB World Cup scene. Some teams simply stick adhesive-backed lead weights to the downtube, but they have much neater options. The first is by G-Project and mounts inside the 24mm axle of the Shimano Saint crank axle, a neat system designed and made by team mechanic Gio.

The second option is a custom-machined box that mounts around the BB shell and lets mechanics adjust the ballast based on feel and data from repeated track runs. And for riders like Goldstone who want even more, they use a simple Peatys Holdwrap, meant to store tools and spares on a normal bike, but its super-secure wide Velcro strap makes it work perfectly here too.

Downhill bikes also have a mind-boggling range of frame adjustments, which, depending on the rider, can be changed drastically for each track. Things like wheelbase, head angle, reach and bottom bracket heights can be tweaked accordingly, but that's only half the story. They can also make pretty drastic changes to suspension feel by moving the rear shock or linkage attached to it, adjusting the main pivot location or even adding a floating arm for the rear brake, which can change the bike's kinematics and let the mechanics and riders play around with things like the amount of travel, shock progression and even things like anti-squat and anti-rise or brake jack.

Data acquisition, not guesswork

How do they know whether their suspension and frame geometry setups are working? Like Formula 1, they look at data from bike-mounted systems that record suspension and braking movements, plus GPS, so they can see what the bike is doing on the track. I had a good chat with the Santa Cruz Syndicate mechanic, Gio, who not only makes the axle-based weights shown above, but also has a background in MotoGP and is an expert in data acquisition.

Some riders like to go on feel and validate with the data, whereas others like to follow it more closely. Either way, it's an important area for the team and one they put a lot of effort into.

This also has a big impact on suspension set-up, which, alongside the wide range of frame adjustments, also has a huge range of options. Riders and mechanics can tune things like spring rate, high- and low-speed compression and rebound damping, and for some teams even electronically-controlled damping. Not a lockout like you'd find on the XC circuit, since theres no climbing here, but different modes to make sure the rider has the optimum setup at different points on the track.

For a downhill bike, this matters because the margins are brutal and the conditions change constantly. A track that's tacky and grippy during Saturday practice can be dry, dusty and skittish by Sunday's final run. A suspension setup that felt perfect twelve hours earlier can work against the rider by race time.

Data acquisition turns that guesswork into an engineering problem: mechanics can see, objectively, whether the fork is using its last 20mm of travel on the biggest hits of a track, whether the shock is packing down over repeated braking bumps, or whether a rider is consistently under-using travel because the spring rate is too firm for the terrain. It's the difference between tuning by feel and tuning by evidence, and it's precisely the discipline F1 teams apply to ride-height and damper mapping.

Brands like RockShox, Fox, and Ohlins invest a lot of time and money in top-tier suspension and have their own mechanics and workshops on site at every race to make sure everything's running optimally.

They also hold multiple off-season meetings and test sessions, like the best motorsport teams do, to test new designs and get feedback from riders and mechanics alike to help design new products. That not only benefits teams like the Santa Cruz Syndicate but also trickles down to riders like you and me.

Tuned mass dampers: Borrowed physics, different frequency

If one piece of technology captures the F1 comparison most directly, it's the tuned mass damper, and the Commencal Muc-Off team has been at the forefront of adopting it.

Commencal riders Amaury Pierron and Myriam Nicole have run TMD units on their Supreme DH bikes for a couple of seasons now, most visibly units developed under the CounterShox/CounterCycle programme, mounted to reduce vibration and keep the tyre in more consistent contact with the ground.

The concept is a direct import from motorsport. Renault's Formula 1 team famously ran a tuned mass damper in 2005–06; a spring-mounted weight tucked in the nose of the car that oscillated out of phase with chassis movement to damp pitch and improve mechanical grip over kerbs and bumps, until the FIA banned it in 2006, ruling it a moveable aerodynamic device.

The underlying physics is straightforward: a mass mounted on a spring and damper absorbs energy at a specific resonant frequency, cancelling unwanted vibration in the main structure rather than letting it transmit through to the rest of the system.

Where it gets interesting is the difference in application. F1's mass damper was tuned to a narrow, specific frequency band, specifically the pitch and heave frequencies of a car's chassis under load, a relatively predictable and repeatable set of inputs given a smooth and repeatable circuit surface.

A downhill bike doesn't get that luxury. A rider is being hit with an enormous spread of vibration frequencies simultaneously. High-frequency chatter off small roots and rock, mid-frequency braking bumps, and massive compressions through berms and jumps often happen within the same second, on terrain that never repeats exactly the same way twice.

So the units teams like Commencal Muc-Off are running have to be tuned to work across a much broader frequency range than their motorsport ancestor, sacrificing some of the pinpoint efficiency of an F1 damper (tuned to one dominant frequency) for a system that takes the edge off a wider, messier spread of inputs.

It would be easy to write it off as a placebo for riders, but everyone I spoke to said riders could tell the difference in blind off-season testing, so they’ve stuck with it.

Frame compliance as a tuning variable

Another piece of this puzzle is one road cycling flirts with during the Spring Classics and on endurance and gravel bikes, but largely ignores for the WorldTour: tuning frame material and layup specifically for compliance, rather than pure stiffness.

For years, bike marketing in every discipline chased stiffness numbers as an unambiguous good: stiffer meant more efficient, more precise, faster.

Downhill has pushed back against that orthodoxy, because a completely rigid frame transmits all impacts and trail chatter back to the rider, and it also doesn't hold a line on rough terrain as well.

MotoGP and World Superbike know this too, which is why teams build flex and compliance into frames. That movement helps the bike flow with the ground instead of fighting it, which may seem counterintuitive at first.

Teams and manufacturers now treat compliance - how much a frame is allowed to flex, twist and absorb energy through its front triangle, chainstays and seatstays - as a deliberately engineered characteristic, and no longer just a manufacturing tolerance to be eliminated.

This can be done with carbon layups, but that is an expensive route and doesn't offer as much adjustability. Instead, teams like Commencal Muc-Off have been experimenting with different materials and inserts between the seatstays that can be swapped out. In the past, they used alloy, carbon, and even chromoly steel sections to find the ideal mix, but now they stick with alloy and use different composites in various thicknesses mounted between the stays to get the same effect.

This gives them lots of options they can swap out quickly between race runs to help the rider find their optimum setting.

When flying down a mountain, brakes matter

It sounds unglamorous next to tuned mass dampers and fancy frame tuning, but brakes and brake setup are among the most crucial parts of a bike designed to plummet down a mountainside.

Like everything else on a downhill bike, there are a range of options. Riders can pick different compounds, rotor sizes, and some even offer varying numbers of pistons (or pots).

It's an area where lots of off-season testing happens to make sure the products work well together and do what they are supposed to. The World Cup is also the prime proving ground for brands to test their new designs; if you want to see what the likes of Shimano or SRAM are doing next year, then have a close look around the pits at any race, and you'll find plenty of prototypes floating around.

Why this matters more than it gets credit for

None of this shows up on a start list or a results sheet. Nobody's writing "500g of lead, data-logged suspension, and a tuned mass damper" into a race report, but it all weaves into the fabric of the racing and something I find endlessly intriguing.

If you get the chance, you should check out World Cup downhill run closely, really closely. Watching what the bikes do under immense loads isn't only impressive; it also helps you understand why and how they set up bikes the way they do, and that can carry over to your own trail time too.

The WorldTour still, for the most part, treats the bike as a largely finished technology, with only marginal aerodynamic and weight gains left to chase. Downhill, however, has a much broader field of improvements to go at. The fact that they treat the bike as an active, tunable system - weight distribution, suspension damping, braking, thermal management, structural compliance and so on - has more in common with the top tiers of motorsport than most bike races.

Every one of which is being approached with the same rigour a motorsport engineer would bring to a car setup sheet, albeit with far less money to spend. And it's not a comparison I make merely for clickbait either, as a lifelong bike nerd who is as obsessed with the latest aero bike as he is with a suspension damper, and having been at both the start of the Tour de France in Barcelona, and at the Mountain Bike World Championships in Val di Sole in the past two months alone, I must say I find the downhill paddocks endlessly more interesting; a near-limitless pool of tech gems.

Downhill is where cycling's engineering ambition and ingenuity live, just not with the same budgets as its motorised cousins.

Of all the secret machines on show, the one that lit up the switchboard the most was Factor’s gravel monster, which seemed to mate a somewhat normal gravel rear end with the absolutely outlandish fork of the brand’s ONE hyper-aero road bike.

Now, as we head toward the UCI Gravel World Championships, all the best gravel race bikes come back out on show for a UCI-sanctioned hurrah after being happily raced all over the more prestigious courses of the Lifetime Grand Prix and Gravel Earth Series.

And within said hurrah, Factor has now officially unveiled the aforementioned monster, and it’s called the Elara.

It’s another slightly poetic-sounding name to sit alongside the more multi-surface Factor Aluto, and the endurance-leaning Factor Sarana. Unlike those two bikes, which profess to offer usability beyond the confines of a race environment, the Elara has been created for the cut and thrust of the biggest gravel races on the calendar.

This isn’t Factor’s first aero gravel bike; the Ostro Gravel was one of the very first crop of aero machines designed for gravel races, but Factor is keen to stress that this isn’t just an Ostro Gravel with bigger tyres, but rather a complete redesign, even though it was internally known as the 'OG2' at Factor until relatively late in its development cycle.

Frame and geometry

It’s perhaps too easy to look at that gargantuan fork and just say ‘It’s just a Factor ONE with bigger tyres’, but besides the fork's wide stance, it - and the rest of the bike - is quite different, and even with the very wide and very deep legs, it eschews a bayonet design in this case in favour of a more traditional internal, and round, steerer tube.

The super wide legs claim to fit up to 57mm (as measured) tyres, though as I’ll go into in my initial ride experiences below, I think this may be pushing it and would suggest the maximum if you’re actually buying your own frames is more like 55mm.

The width isn’t an issue, but the height is, though at the back things seem a little more roomy, despite keeping the chainstays to a pretty short 423mm. Still, 57mm is the stated clearance, though this is only with 1x setups, and is claimed to be an industry first for ‘true race geometry’.

Against the run of play, Factor has maintained 2x compatibility for the frame with a direct-mount front derailleur plate for those increasingly few riders who want a double chainset. This will reduce the tyre capacity down to 47mm at the rear, due to derailleur clearance.

Geometrically, it doesn’t stray far from the other machines in Factor’s gravel range. It’s the lowest of the bunch, 5mm lower in stack than the Aluto and 13mm lower than the Sarana. It has the same chainstay length as the Aluto, and 2mm shorter than the Sarana, and the same BB drop as the Sarana at 80mm (the same as the Fara GR4, too - another bike designed around very large tyres). It’s 5mm longer than the Aluto, and 1mm shorter than the Sarana, but with a head tube angle steeper than both. In short, it has the most ‘race’ geo of the lot.

Aero claims and system weights

The Elara doesn’t come with any hard-and-fast wattage figures, despite its clear aero optimisation. It is "CFD-validated for 45-57mm gravel race tyres" however, and average speeds of 35km/h are mentioned too, so we assume this is the speed at which it has been tested.

Luckily for Cyclingnews subscribers, we've had it in the wind tunnel ourselves, so head to our Factor Elara wind tunnel results for the details there.

The brand also claims "comparable aero efficiency to modern aero road frames at equivalent yaw angles," and a "5-8% lower drag coefficient vs Ostro Gravel with a 47mm tyre."

The frameset weighs in at (claimed) sub-1,110g for a size M raw frame, while our test machine (a 56cm frame) tipped the scales at 8.76kg with SRAM Force XPLR.

New gravel wheels

Not to be outdone by the likes of Enve and Zipp, Black Inc., Factor's in-house componentry wing, has concurrently launched the Sixty Four Gravel wheelset, with a 64mm depth, a 40.25mm external width and a 30mm internal width with a hooked rim; the first of the big name brands to offer a hooked bead in this category.

This set has a claimed weight of 1,620g (excluding tape and valves), and runs on ceramic bearings as standard. Freehubs are swappable and available to suit the three main providers of groupsets, and engage with a three-pawl ratchet system.

New cockpit

As well as a new frame, and new wheels, the Elara also comes with a brand-new cockpit, the Black Inc. Aero Gravel Bar AB07, with 40/38/36cm widths available and stem lengths of 80- 130 mm. There’s a 17-degree flare, 75mm reach, and 114mm of drop.

Price

The Elara is available with either SRAM Red or Force, or Campagnolo Record, and with a choice of the new Black Inc. 64 wheels or the slightly cheaper 46 wheels.

First impressions

I’ve logged about 200km on the Elara so far, though a chunk of these were simply riding it to and from the office rather than on gravel, so I am not able to give a full account just yet. Before we go into how it rides, though, I must make a note on the tyre capacity: I am sceptical about the ‘true 57mm clearance’.

On taking delivery, I swapped the 50mm Continental Dubnitals out for a set of 2.25” Maxxis Aspens, which measured 57.6mm with my calipers, and when inflated to the pressure suggested by the SRAM tyre pressure calculator, they touched the crown of the fork.

Dropping the pressure made them rideable, but I wasn’t comfortable with the extremely limited sub-1mm gap and swapped the tyres back to a 50mm. I’d suggest a 52, and maybe even a 54 may be OK, and while the rear seemed to swallow the 57mm fine, the fork is not as cavernous as its width suggests.

This may be down to the specific tyre model, and in conversations with Factor it seems some athletes get away with a 57mm fine, but all the same, it’s 57 with caveats rather than a true 57 in my view.

As for how it rides, if you like road-like sensations with big tyres then you’ll like the Elara. The geometry keeps the handling lovely and sharp and poised, and it does match up to the claims of Factor that “we wanted the handling to feel fast again. A lot of gravel bikes have gone soft in the pursuit of comfort. We’re bringing back that sense of urgency.”

Going soft is a criticism that won’t be levelled at the Elara, which is hugely stiff. It is stiffer than the old Ostro Gravel, which was itself quite a stiff machine, but this is ameliorated to a great degree by the larger tyres. I did actually prefer it during my brief time on the 57mm tyres, and on rough terrain even the 50s can’t stop you from feeling a little rattled, but the flip side to this is that it never feels wallowy or anything less than immediate.

I also found it quite a competent climber, more so than I expected on rough, technical terrain, likely a function of slightly steeper geometry keeping your weight more over the middle of the bike.

In short, I think it hits Factor's internal brief, and I’d wager it’s more appealing to the gravel generalist than the ONE is to your enthusiastic road rider. The comfort is likely going to be the weak point, especially in the context of quite rough courses like Traka, but it needs more riding to tease that out. On fast, well-graded stuff, it absolutely rips.

Ahead of the bike's launch, my colleague Will has been testing it for an upcoming review. That'll come once he's back from his late-summer holiday trudging around the Scottish Highlands, but through a stroke of good timing, we were booked in at the wind tunnel last week, so we couldn't resist seeing how it stacked up against the likes of the S-Works Crux 5 and the Wilier Rave SLR we tested earlier in the year, plus the new race-ready Giant Revolt too.

We were also keen to see how the new super-deep Black Inc gravel wheels fared against the new Enve G SES 6.7 Pro, Zipp 303 XPLR and more. More on that later.

Despite our local van hire company's best attempts at blocking us by sending the smallest van in their fleet, I put my childhood Tetris obsession to good use, loaded it up to the hilt, and headed east from Cyclingnews HQ to the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub.

Protocol

To ensure a fair and comparable test against the bikes we tested back in May, we matched the protocol from that test.

I'll outline some of the important bits below, but to save going over the details of (and reasons for) the protocol and sending you half to sleep, I'd suggest heading over to that gravel bike wind tunnel group test, where the details are outlined in full for those who want to get nerdy.

What's important to know here is that everything was tested in exactly the same way as before, against the same baseline bike on each day to get an accurate comparison of how aerodynamic each gravel bike is relative to the others.

This meant testing at a wind speed of 35km/h, and at seven different yaw angles (the angle at which the wind hits the bike): -15°, -10°, -5°, 0°, 5°, 10° and 15°.

It also meant using the same position as all other gravel bikes we've tested, as well as using the same tyres (45mm Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH), bottles (Elite Fly), saddle (Ergon SR AllRoad), and anything else that can be controlled.

And as ever, we tested each bike in three ways:

• With a rider, with the stock wheelset
• Without a rider, with the stock wheelset
• Without a rider, with a pair of 'control' wheels (Enve G-SES 6.7 shod with 50mm Vittoria Terreno Dry tyres)

A few quick caveats and disclaimers

Like many of today's gravel race bikes, the Factor Elara is designed around tyres wider than the 45mm and 50mm tyres we tested with here, and this could adversely affect the results in comparison to a bike designed around narrower tyres. We don't know for sure by how much, if at all, but it's a caveat worth mentioning. Unfortunately, our time in the wind tunnel is limited, so we can't test every bike with every tyre size.

In time, we will likely adjust our gravel testing protocol to focus more on these wide-tyred race bikes. I think anyone interested in the aero data of gravel bikes is going to primarily be interested in 'gravel race' bikes, which as a category is converging towards wide tyres as the norm.

And with all that said, we're aware that aero data is only one piece of the puzzle of defining whether a bike is good or bad. Weight, tyre clearance, comfort, price, serviceability, reliability, and brand aftercare are just some of the other factors (no pun intended) to consider when buying, all coupled with the purpose and type of riding you plan on doing.

Results

I'll get stuck right in with the headline result: The Factor Elara is the most aerodynamic gravel bike we've ever tested, by a pretty significant margin, in both of our bike only tests, and it's on the podium in our 'with rider' test too.

The coefficient of drag at each of the seven yaw angles, for the three tests, looks like this:

I appreciate that's not the most visually useful graph, since the with-rider test and the two bike-only tests are quite far apart, but if you're nerdy enough to care about the specific values, you can hover over and you'll get to see the exact CdA at each yaw point. Otherwise, keep scrollin', as I've already done the calculations that help to show what that means.

Using an average of those seven points, weighted according to the methods set out by Nathan Barry's 2018 paper – A New Method for Analysing the Effect of Environmental Wind on Real World Aerodynamic Performance in Cycling – I have solved for watts using the following equation.

I did this at two speeds. Firstly at 35km/h, as this is the wind speed we tested at. Then again at 40km/h, so we can compare it against the road bikes we've tested too.

The point of this is to see how much energy (in watts) is required to overcome the aerodynamic drag (aka, the wind) in an average real-world riding scenario. If Bike A requires less energy than Bike B, we can deduce that assuming all else is equal (tyre drag, weight, drivetrain friction, etc), then you will be faster on Bike A for the same amount of effort.

And for context, when comparing aerodynamic drag in watts, the differences between bikes will shrink at slower speeds; if there's five watts between bikes at 35km/h, it'll be around three watts at 30km/h, and two watts at 25km/h. This is because power grows to the cube of speed (as shown in the equation above).

It goes the other way too. For a fun example, if something is a mere two watts better off at 25km/h, it's not 20 watts better at 250km/h, it's actually 2000 watts better! This is because you're increasing the speed by 10x, so you need to increase the watts by 10 to the power of three, or 1000! Good luck riding a bike at 250km/h though.

Sorry, I promised not to bore you half to sleep… shall we look at the results in detail?

With its stock wheelset - the Black Inc Sixty Four Gravel - shod with the 45mm Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH tyre, and in the 'bike only' test, the Factor Elara is 9.64 watts more aerodynamic than our baseline bike (an old Trek Emonda ALR road bike that stays unchanged between all tests).

As a more useful comparison, that's 2.97 watts better (at 35km/h) than the next most aero gravel bike we've tested, Argon 18's Anti Matter. And compared to the least aerodynamic gravel bike we've tested, the Lauf Seigla (with round bars and external cables), it offers a huge 22.38 watt gain.

The results with a rider (me) atop the bike place the Elara in third place behind the S-Works Crux 5 and the Wilier Rave SLR ID2.

It's important to note that adding a rider into the equation reduces the accuracy of the test (since the rider can't hold a perfectly still position). We've calculated an error margin of 2.8 watts on the day, and with that taken into account, the Elara can still lay claim to top spot, even if it wasn't the outright most aerodynamic in the raw data.

It's also worth adding that the Elara is a heavier bike than the Crux 5, but I've intentionally not quoted the weights because the Elara we tested here was a SRAM Force-equipped model, versus the SRAM Red equipped Crux.

And in our third test, which swaps out the Black Inc wheels for a pair of 'control' wheels that lets us see how the frames alone compare, the Elara is on top once again. This time with a slightly smaller margin. This essentially tells us that the frame alone is the fastest of all that we've tested, but that the Black Inc wheels are pulling their weight in making the bike faster too.

In fact, when you look at how each bike tests with their own wheels against the Enve wheels, the Factor Elara was affected the least. There was a 1.79 watt improvement when switching wheels (and, remember, we've swapped tyres too) which is the smallest gain of all the bikes we've tested.

Compared to road bikes

Since we test all bikes against our baseline Trek Emonda, we can also see how the Factor Elara stands up against the road bikes we've tested too, including the mega-aero Factor One, which is the fastest bike we've ever tested.

It won't be that fast, let's not get excited, but it's an interesting comparison nonetheless. Given the Elara's aggressive position, we can gauge if it could hold its own as a one-bike-does-everything solution.

Out of context, the graph above makes the Elara look quite poor, but remember, it's the fastest gravel bike we've tested, and we've tested a lot more road bikes than gravel bikes to date.

Importantly, it comes in just 10.45w slower than the Look Blade 795 RS we tested in 2024. That's really impressive considering the Elara was tested with 45mm knobbly gravel tyres, versus the Look's 25mm road tyres.

If we were to test both with a 32mm road tyre (which, to prevent lawyers coming after me, wouldn't be ETRTO compliant given the width of the Black Inc wheels), I imagine that deficit would mostly (if not entirely) disappear. Next time we're at the tunnel, I'll figure out a way to test this theory.

And finally, with the rider on the bike, that deficit grows to 20.06w between the Elara and the slowest modern road bike – the Cinelli Aeroscoop. However, this is because the position of the gravel bikes is different to the road bikes, putting the rider in a more upright (and thus, less aerodynamic) position, so there's more rider drag in the equation.

Compared to Factor's ONE aero bike, we're looking at a deficit of 33.99 watts. However, if we were to roadify the position of the Elara to match that of the ONE as closely as possible, we'd be able to reduce that gap. Exactly how much by, though, is unknown.

Conclusion

Based on the spec sheet and our wind tunnel test results, it's safe to conclude that the Factor Elara is a best-in-class gravel race bike at the time of its launch. It's the most aerodynamic gravel bike we've tested in both bike only tests, and can lay claim to top spot with a rider, too. Meanwhile, the clearance is rated for 57mm tyres (according to the brand) and the wheels are bang up to date with the gravel race trend, thanks to their 64mm depth and 30mm internal width.

As mentioned up top, my colleagye Will has the bike in for testing. He's penned his early impressions in our Factor Elara launch story, but will wrap up the review in the next couple of weeks, so we can see how the aero data translates to the real world, and get his perspective on stiffness, comfort, and what it's like to live with. You can expect his in-depth write up, followed shortly thereafter by a video review, which will go live for Cyclingnews subscribers ahead for early access, before later going onto the new Cyclingnews Tech YouTube channel.

Give that a follow, if you're not already, and we'll see you next Thursday for more wind tunnel test results of another new bike that I'm afraid I can't name right now.