Eurobike is back. Though not as I or many others remember it.

At one point, it looked like the show might not go ahead at all, but in the end, it has returned, albeit in a much smaller capacity, and there was still plenty of new tech on display to check out.

The event now uses only three halls and even these were far from full, compared to seven or more in previous years. As someone who has attended the show on and off for fifteen years, I found this rather melancholic. It's an event that everyone likes to complain about, but it was always a great chance to meet up with the rest of the industry from around the world in one place. Alas, times change, but despite this, there was still some great stuff on show.

Having roamed the halls, here are my top five highlights.

1. New Canyon Aeroad CFR

Canyon wasn't shy about its latest race bike, the Aerroad CFR. "The fastest Tour de France bike you can buy." That's a line touted by many an aero bike builder, but this one is at least backed by test results from Tour magazine that put it under the elusive 200W barrier, and putting it ahead of everything else currently in the pro peloton. Time will tell how well it fares in our own testing, though; keep your eyes peeled.

Calling it a new bike feels a bit of a stretch, though, as all of the changes and improvements come from using a different handlebar. It now features UDH (Universal Derailleur Hanger) compatibility, and more seatpost options are available, too, making it much easier to get your ideal fit.

The handlebar has been used by Mathieu van der Poel and his teammates all season and is available aftermarket at £598, should you want to upgrade your existing Aerroad.

The catchily titled CP0053 is said to be 120g lighter than the outgoing version and to save two watts, with a forward-sweeping design and flared drops. Canyon make some lofty claims on how much this new bar saves with the rider, claiming the longer lower position could save up to 24 watts (assuming, of course, the lower position works for you and you can stay in it, which is no mean feat for most of us).

2. Ridley's unnamed gravel racer

The prototype for this was first spotted at the Traka by our own Will Jones back in April, and it now looks much closer to production-ready, proudly on display on the Ridley stand. We assume it'll be the new Kanzo, but it doesn't yet have an official name.

It's a striking-looking beast, and ticks all of the current gravel racers' want lists. Aero, wide tyre clearance (up to 58mm apparently), frame storage and an aggressive position similar to top-end road bikes. The display bike featured SRAM Force 1x13 (does anyone still run a double chainring in gravel?) and had a neat Wolf Tooth chain guide as well as a sharp-looking Forza one-piece cockpit with narrow lever position and flared drops. The wheels look like something new, too, with deep rims and 27mm internal rim bed, CeramicSpeed-equipped hubs, and carbon spokes. They're named the Forza Sikonros and could be a good, fast option with wider rubber.

3. Eddy Merckx 525R

On the same stand was the Eddy Merckx 525R, which takes a thoroughly different approach to going fast. It has a lot of the things you'd expect, like a nine-watt saving over the original, tyre clearance for 34mm and a sub-kilo frame weight. But what makes this interesting is its approach to fit geometry.

By steepening the seat angle and raising the stack, they've created an aero bike that still lets the rider get in an aero position, but one that's far more comfortable for us mere mortals to hold. There is some clever geometry manipulation going on here, and good use of the revised UCI regulations, too, which means they have moved the saddle position further forward to open up the hip angle, which is becoming an increasingly common way to get faster on the bike.

Elsewhere, you'll see aero features common on lots of other bikes, like a deep head tube and aero tube shapes throughout, but combined with its fresh take on fit geometry, this could be one of the surprises of all of the latest generation of aero bikes.

4. Megamo Upon

Avinox, the e-bike arm of DJi, drew plenty of attention this year with its new concept motor, combining an E-bike motor and gearbox, but it was the use of its current 2nd-series motor on the Megamo Upon that caught my eye.

Most E-road bikes approach the motor in the same way, trying to hide it as much as possible. Both in terms of looks and function, but the Upon is different. Looks-wise, Megamo has done a very good job of packaging the full power motor and 600Wh battery. You can still tell it's an e-bike at first glance, but it's far from the early monstrosities the Eurobike was often full of.

Power is where it differs greatly, though. Normally, bike brands will spec either a lighter-spec version with less torque or a specific motor designed to give a softer feel on drop-bar E-bikes. The idea being that you don't really notice the motor and still feel like it's your effort propelling you forward, more of a gentle assist than you would find on a full-power e-MTB, for instance. But not here. This uses the same high-powered motor as their MTB line, offering up to 1500 watts of peak power.

I'd say watch out Jasper Philipsen, but his is limited to 25 km/h in Europe, so don't expect to be dominating any sprints on it. It should make light work of steep climbs, though. It's an interesting approach, and one to keep an eye on.

5. Gusto's new GTG gravel prototype

And finally, a bike from a brand you might not have heard of, but one ridden by someone in his younger years, you certainly will know.

Gusto are a Taiwanese brand that offers great value road bikes, but unlike many others, has been involved in the European race scene for some time, sponsoring a certain Tadej Pogačar when he first joined the peloton. In fact, he now personally sponsors the second division team that still runs the Gusto bikes.

The brand had a new gravel bike on display outside in the sweltering heat. Details were a bit scarce, but it looked like it follows many of the aesthetics and details found on its current road bike, the GTR and added all the features you'd expect of a gravel bike; plenty of tyre clearance, a one-piece cockpit and a suitably aggressive position, and some new gravel-specific wheels too.

The brand says it expects to launch the bike fully later this year, but if its road range is anything to go by, I'd expect it to be sharp-handling and extremely well priced.

Colnago has officially launched the TT2 time trial bike that Tadej Pogačar was racing on in April at the Tour de Romandie.

The TT2 was first spotted as an unknown prototype back in February. Colnago itself then gave us information on it in the run-up to Romandie, and now the official launch is here.

The Tour de France will soon begin, the race opening with a team time trial in Barcelona, with another individual time trial later in the race. The new bike will see action on both those important stages.

Before that though, Pogačar (and his teammates) will ride the ITT at the Tour de Suisse on Saturday aboard the TT2 after laying waste to the race on its opening day with a highly impressive long-range solo attack.

The TT2 is available as a 'frame kit' from late September. The kit includes: frame (available in XS, S, M, L), fork, seatpost, base bar, aero bottle system and cage, bearings / small parts, etc.

The TT2 has clearance for up to 30mm tyres, is UDH hanger friendly, uses a BSA 68 bottom bracket standard, and can accommodate up to a 70 tooth chainring.

Prices are: $7,500 / £6,499 / €7,040.

Lighter and faster

Major headlines around the TT2 have focused on the bike's lower weight; Colnago claims it's 550 grams lighter as a frame kit compared to the Colnago TT1, the brand's TT machine up to this point.

A small, ready-to-paint frame weighs 985 grams, and a frame kit weight is 2240 grams. The fork is also much lighter, 393 grams against 530 grams for the TT1 fork.

A half kilo saving on a top-level road machine would be very difficult to achieve without compromise. It seems Colnago has found a way to drop this healthy chunk of weight from the TT rig with its added frame real estate whilst still 'preserving the stiffness, strength and aerodynamic efficiency required'.

In short, it sounds like the TT2 will result in a 550-odd-gram lighter bike, but it's now faster and more stable, with an updated geometry that makes it more user-friendly and more suited to modern time trial courses that appear to be moving away from the long, straight drag strips of old.

Colnago says the TT2 has 'simplified structural junctions', a revised carbon layup strategy and a new fork concept. As is the norm with high-end bike design, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and wind tunnel testing were used in the development of the bike.

The front end of the bike has received key attention to reduce frontal area. There's a narrower handlebar that measures 36cm centre-to-centre, a new fork and a slimmer 32mm-wide head tube. Front-end performance is very important aerodynamically, and this has clearly been a concern for the TT2.

The rear of the bike has also received attention. The seatstays are wider around the rear wheel to improve airflow, and more smoothly integrated into the seat tube; it looks far less eye-catching and angular than the TT1 design.

Elsewhere, the bottom bracket, seatpost and fork, as mentioned, are all new and more high-modulus carbon fibre has been used across the frame.

The brand claims a two-watt saving compared to the TT1 across 'a weighted range of real whirlwind conditions,' and confirms aerodynamic drag is lower than the TT1.

Colnago also cites stability as a key concern for the TT2, and the frame has new shallower tube profiles specifically to provide more predictable 'airflow behaviour across a range of yaw angles'. Colnago makes the case that fewer steering corrections let riders maintain their aero position more effectively.

Various pro riders have crashed on TT bikes in training, most recently Wout van Aert; perhaps a more stable all-round bike will help riders when training and competing.

Geometry has also been updated. The XS size is new, and stack/reach numbers have been altered. Stack height now grows as reach increases, whereas it flatlined before in larger sizes. Colnago says this change reduces the need for extreme spacer configurations, i.e riders would add multiple spacers to the handlebar configuration to achieve their desired position.

The seat tube angle has gotten steeper, and the bottom bracket drop has been lowered to facilitate 'aggressive forward rider positions'.

A magnetic aero bottle

;An integrated aero bottle is also included with the TT2, and it's an 'aerodynamic component of the bike'. Colnago says the bottle and cage have the thinnest and longest permitted profile to reduce aero drag overall.

The cage uses Fidlock magnetic Twist fasteners to make bottle access easier and faster in an event.

Notably, the UAE Team Emirates-XRG team will not use the stock water bottle due to a sponsorship agreement with Elite, instead using an Elite aero bottle with a custom Colnago bottle cage system.

The biggest race of the year approaches, given the way he continues to ride, the fact that the world champion now has a lighter, faster bike to use for time trials will surely only bolster his chances when July rolls around.

The best budget mountain bike market can be a minefield. Choose the wrong one, and it'll rob you of a fun-filled future, but buy the right one, and it'll be the gateway to a lifetime of berm slapping and bike adventures. Luckily, entry-level MTBs no longer have to equate to trail-riding disappointment.

Our expert testers have many decades of experience riding affordable mountain bikes, which is how we picked the best budget options here. Something to bear in mind when looking at budget MTBs is that there will always be compromises. If a bike has a great drivetrain, it might have a lower-end suspension in order to keep the price down or vice versa.

Once you buy a bike, you might find that you want to upgrade some of the components. Tyres are consumables that eventually wear out, or you might want to swap your stock tyres to something that better suits your needs. Should either case happen, we've got guides to the best MTB trail tyres and best XC tyres, and we've also got a guide to the best MTB grips.

As everyone's idea of 'budget' can differ, we've chosen a range of affordable mountain bikes to allow riders to match their expectations to a specific price point.

Best budget mountain bikes

Best budget hardtail

Trek knows how to make a high-quality frame, and the Roscoe 7 Gen 4 comes with all the features and additions that you would want to find on a modern hardtail.

The top tube is low slung for plenty of standover height, there's a relaxed 65-degree head angle to aid confident descending, and Boost hub spacing on the fork and frame for increased stiffness and wheel upgrade potential later on. All the cabling is internally routed through the frame, and the bike also comes with a frame bag.

The specification is what you'd expect from the Wisconsin brand, including a decent quality, 150mm travel, air-suspension RockShox Recon Silver RL fork and Shimano CUES 1x10 drivetrain paired with TLR 30 rims and Gunnison Pro XR 2.4in tyres from in-house brand Bontrager. It also comes with a TranzX dropper post with 150mm drop on the size S, 170mm on M and ML, and 200mm on L and XL.

We've ridden various iterations of the Trek Roscoe. With its easy, confident handling and plenty of traction from the bigger tyres, it's a great option for beginner riders and dirt tourers looking for a little extra comfort, or trail riding predictability. The 150mm fork means the Roscoe is more capable up front than most of the other hardtails in this round-up, too.

Best full-suspension

Bet you weren't expecting to see a full-suspension bike in our list of the best budget mountain bikes, yet Marin has pulled it off.

Not only does the Rift Zone 1 have the on-trail benefits of full-suspension – adding confidence, grip, and control – it also manages to budget in a solid spec sheet that rivals some equally priced hardtails. There's also a choice of 27.5 and 29-inch wheeled versions.

There are a few compromises though, the X-Fusion rear shock is basic rather than brilliant, as are the Tektro hydraulic brakes. But overall, the Rift Zone is still a proper bargain and you can upgrade these components later if you wish.

As to be expected from an established brand like Marin, the geometry is sorted as well, with a 65.5-degree head angle, 77-degree seat angle, and decent reach numbers, which put you in a great position to shred the trail both up and down.

Best budget mountain bike for trail riding

Merida's latest Big Trail hardtail is an even more sorted trail steed than before. The previous model had really well dialled-in geometry and an excellent ride feel, but the new version has even more confident handling, guaranteeing good times on genuinely big trails. If you're looking for a budget hardtail that's got what it takes to go beyond blue-marked trails, this is the one for you.

While the 140mm RockShox Psylo fork, Shimano CUES groupset with hydraulic brakes, 2.5in wide tyre up front with a 2.4in rear, and a dropper post are all obvious highlights, there's some great 'hidden' detailing too.

Short seat tubes let you size up or down to get the reach you want for the kind of riding you do. There are twin bottle mounts and an accessory mount for trail essentials, but also a stealth kickstand and fender fixtures for weekday workhorse duties. What's not to love?

The Big Trail range consists of three models. While we've featured the mid-price, mid-spec Big Trail 500 here, all three bikes use the same excellent frame and bike setup, so the cheaper 300 model is well worth a look too. We've tested the slightly costlier model, so see our Merida Big Trail 600 review for a verdict on how the bike rides.

Best budget mountain bike for speed

If you're looking for a speed-hungry mountain bike at a decent price, the Specialized Rockhopper Expert is a good option.

A low overall weight (13.2kg, size large) provides an energetic and lively ride feel that encourages stamping on the pedals with enthusiasm. Paired with the smooth RockShox Judy air-sprung fork, low bottom bracket and fantastically well-modulated Shimano MT200 brakes, the Rockhopper oozes confidence on less technical trails. The amount of available fork travel increases with frame size, from 80mm on XS and S, up to 100mm for the L, XL and XXL. We're not really sure why Spesh gives smaller riders less suspension travel, but it's worth noting.

Something more significant is that, just like its previous, very similar iteration – the Specialised Rockhopper Elite reviewed by our tester, Jim Bland – this latest Rockhopper shares a potentially major drawback: a straight, non-tapered head tube. With all the best aftermarket suspension forks using tapered steerer tubes, there’s no room for upgrading the Rockhopper’s front-end performance with a better fork. While this could be a deal-breaker for some, if you're not planning any future fork upgrades, it won't matter at all.

As Jim said of the Rockhopper Elite, "If you think you’re a rider who will keep things stock and just ride, the Rockhopper’s trail prowess, excellent brakes and sorted gearing make it a great riding option that should provide years of fun."

Best budget mountain bike for all-round riding

The Marlin hardtail family are Trek's best-selling mountain bikes, which makes them some of the most popular in the world. It's easy to see why, with the Marlin 6's under 33lb weight, fast-rolling 29er wheels, and good looks all making it a standout performer.

Older Marlins had more upright geometry that was better suited to cross-country than trail riding, but the latest frames are longer and more relaxed. This increases stability and rider confidence, and is much more suited to tackling modern trails. Fast rolling tyres keep riding speeds up though, so this bike is definitely no slouch on flatter trails.

The Marlin's new trail-friendly nature is further enhanced with a TranzX dropper post, which allows you to lower your saddle so it doesn't hinder you when descending. The 100mm fork has far less travel than the Trek Roscoe or the Merida Big Trail though, so if you're looking to go beyond blue-marked trails, they are both better bets.

Trek has also taken the super smart decision to only use the most reliable equipment. This includes Shimano CUES gears, Shimano MT200 hydraulic brakes, and a RockShox Judy fork, which means you get to ride more and worry about maintenance less.

We're less impressed with the decision to use a straight head tube on the frame though. Like the Specialized Rockhopper, this severely restricts any potential fork upgrades you may wish to make in future, as better quality forks require a tapered head tube. However, Trek has a workaround in the form of its FSA Orbit headset. This has an external bottom cup that makes the Marlin's frame compatible with tapered steerer forks.

There are four different Marlins at various price points. We reckon the Marlin 6 is the best bang-for-buck catch. While the Marlin 7 is the top specced model, you're not getting a whole lot more for your money. The two models below the Marlin 6 both have downgraded forks and fewer gear choices.

Things to consider when buying a budget mountain bike

Between us, our test team has tested a huge number of mountain bikes of all price points over the years. That's helped us identify exactly what to look for when buying a budget mountain bike. If the bike you're interested in ticks all the boxes on our checklist below, it's likely to serve you well. If you want more details after reading this, check out our article on 5 must-have features on budget mountain bikes.

• Geometry: Modern frame geometry can deliver a confidence-inspiring ride without the need for state-of-the-art suspension. A key number is the head angle – look for numbers less than 67 degrees, anything over that is likely to feel twitchy and nervous in trail situations. Reach is also a key factor, as longer numbers here will also help to boost trail confidence, though going too long can feel uncomfortably stretched for the rider. Look for around 470mm for a large frame, 450mm for a medium frame and 430mm on a small.
• Brakes: MTB brakes have moved on from grabbing the wheel rim to using specially designed discs (like most motor vehicle brakes) also known as rotors. Disc brakes are much more effective and come in two varieties – hydraulic and cable-operated (aka mechanical). Hydraulic brakes give more reliable stopping as the calipers self-adjust as the pads wear down, but cable operated are decent too. Out of the two types, we'd opt for hydraulics every time though.

• Skinny head tubes: The short explanation here is to just avoid them. Beneath your frame's skinny and straight head tube is a fork with a straight steerer. Straight steerers are an outdated fork standard as most forks now have tapered steerers that are wider at the bottom, and narrower at the top. While straight steerer-equipped forks aren't necessarily worse than similarly specced tapered models, if you want to upgrade to a better fork later on, you're unlikely to find anything that fits your frame.
• Thru-axles: Rather than using a skinny QR skewer rod (that hasn't moved on since they were invented in 1926!) to attach your wheels to your bike, any mountain bike worth its salt these days uses bolt thru-axles. They are threaded tubes that are much stiffer and more secure than QR wheel skewers and will ideally be on the fork and rear dropouts. Look for 'Boost-width' (110mm wide at the front and 148mm at the back) as this is the most commonly used standard these days, so will give you more choice if you decide to upgrade your wheels later.

Best budget mountain bike FAQs

How we test the best budget mountain bikes

All the budget mountain bikes tested here have been ridden on a wide range of trails, from singletrack to technical woodsy riding, in a variety of weather conditions, from bone dry to properly sodden. We test bikes over a number of months so we can assess how they fare over time.

If you're in market for a new MTB, there are loads of budget mountain bike options to choose from. So how do you decide which ones are winners and which are losers? Not just now, but further down the line when you're hooked on trail time and want to upgrade parts or replace bits you've worn out.

Our ultra-experienced bike tester, Guy Kesteven, reveals the five must-have features you might not think about at first, but matter way more than component brands and the number of gears in the long run.

1. Good geometry

If the bike frame isn’t a good shape to start with, there’s nothing you can do to make it ride confidently, so you can have maximum fun. Unfortunately, some cheap mountain bikes just re-use old, outdated frames to save money.

The really important number is the head angle. This is the angle the forks sit in the frame and the smaller that number is the more stable the steering of the bike will feel. For general trail riding, you want a 67-degree head angle or less. Otherwise, the steering will feel really nervous.

A generous reach – the horizontal distance from the centre of cranks to the fork top – also helps stabilise the bike. My baseline numbers are 470mm for a large frame, 450mm for a medium frame and 430mm for a small frame. If you have to size up to get the reach you need, make sure you still have enough space under the saddle to fit a dropper post if you’re looking to upgrade to one in future.

Buyer beware...

To be clear here, we’re talking about the angles of the frame tubes – not the shape of the tubes themselves. They don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, although be aware that big, square tubes will generally give a harder ride than skinny round ones.

2. Disc brakes

Thankfully it’s been a long time since I’ve tested a mountain bike with brakes that rub on the rims to eventually stop you. That’s because disc brakes give much more consistent braking in wet weather or on dirty trails and have become the industry standard. Ideally, you want brakes that use hydraulic fluid as they self-adjust for pad wear, but wire cable-operated disc brakes are still better than rim brakes.

If your budget doesn’t stretch that far then at least get a frame and forks that have the attachment points for disc brakes already built in.

Buyer beware...

Check with the shop what sort of replacement brake pads you’ll need for your brakes. Many budget brakes share standards with Shimano, but some are a special shape which can be hard to find.

3. Through-axles

‘Through-axles’ that slide through solid ends in the fork and frame are a lot more secure than old road bike style quick-release (QR) axles that sit in open slotted fork and frame tips. Ideally, you want them to be ‘Boost’ standard which means 110mm wide at the front and 148mm wide at the back too. This makes the frame and forks stiffer for more accurate control and makes it much easier to upgrade with better wheels in the future.

Buyer beware...

Even at $1,000, some of the most popular mountain bikes still have QR skewers with a skinny steel rod, not a thicker through-axle. Don’t be fooled by ‘standards’ like “Boost 141mm” either as they’re not a proper Boost fit and still use a QR skewer.

4. Tapered fork fit

Another future upgrade issue I still see hiding on some four figure price tag mountain bikes are skinny head tubes with skinny straight ‘steerer’ suspension forks. To be honest, the performance of these forks isn’t much worse than other similarly cheap models so you’re not losing out much at first. However, all better quality forks and frames use a ‘tapered' steerer with a larger bottom bearing as that design is lighter and stiffer, so you won’t be able to upgrade in the future.

Buyer beware...

Speaking of cheap forks, coil-sprung versions can feel great if you’re between 70-80kg in weight. However, if you’re lighter or heavier than that try and get a fork with an air spring that can be adjusted to your weight or how hard you ride.

5. Twenty niner wheels

The final item on my wish list for budget mountain bikes is probably the most controversial one. Unless you’re buying an XS frame I’d say always go for 29-inch wheels if you can. Partly that’s because they roll a bit smoother and easier than 27.5in wheels so your bike will make you feel like a slightly better, fitter rider. You’ll generally find 29in wheeled bikes will have more up-to-date geometry too.

However, yet again the main issue is upgrading in the future. That’s because decent quality 27.5in wheels and tires – particularly front ones – are getting increasingly hard to find as most bikes switch to 29in.

Buyer beware...

The big issue with saying that you should always buy a bike with 29in wheels is that some of the best budget mountain bikes available now still come with 27.5in wheels. Just to be really awkward, they often come with all the essential features listed above while some 29er bikes don’t. So in this case, feel free to ignore me about wheel size, just be sure to buy some spare tyres while you still can (and while they’re being sold off cheap).

Eurobike is less than a week away, and in a move that will undoubtedly draw crowds to the Canyon booth, the German brand has unveiled a bold new collection of technologies it believes can "define the future of safety" for cyclists.

It says, "Road cycling needs a safety revolution. We are transforming safety from being reactive to being predictive."

It's called 'Canyon Predict', and it comprises a prototype bike and smart helmet that work together to analyse your surroundings and warn you of potential risks and dangers before they happen.

That includes not only the behaviour of drivers, but also other cyclists when you're riding in close quarters in a group, as well as your tyre pressure.

It will even advise on cornering speeds, and predict tricky surface conditions "before the rider notices them."

There's even a suggestion of an onboard wind tunnel being added in the future, although its 'Aero Coach' working title might be up for a lawsuit if Xavier Disley, owner of Aerocoach, catches wind (no pun intended) of it.

Predict Bike

With an aesthetic that puts me in mind of the recently launched Lego road bike, the 'Canyon Predict Bike' - as the brand is calling it - could pass as a typical aero road bike, with its deep tubes, aero gulwing-style handlebar and carbon wheels.

More notably here, however, is the integration of a '360-degree sensor array' that can "anticipate road hazards, other road users, track group-ride dynamics, advise on cornering speeds and predict tricky surface conditions."

This is comprised of an array of cameras and radars that feed into the bike's 'Cognitive Core' – or onboard computer to you and me – to be analysed. This computer has an on-device Large Vision Model AI system that combines this data with more typical ride metrics like speed, steering angle and stability, to predict potential hazards from other road users or the surface.

This is then fed back to the rider via a display integrated into the handlebars, lights built into the shifter hoods, and haptic feedback. This indicates threat severity, direction and even provides recommended actions.

Canyon promises the bike will offer both 'passive and active' safety support, with the aforementioned feedback falling squarely under 'passive'.

And although the idea has clearly been derived from the automotive industry's charge towards safety through technology, the Predict Bike stops short of actively slamming on the brakes for you in an emergency.

It will allow you to drop the seatpost for extra stability, and it will even provide progressively extreme warnings from basic haptic suggestions to visual and audible warnings if it believes you're unsafe, such as being too close to the rider – or vehicle – in front of you.

Stingr Smart helmet

Alongside the bike, Canyon has also revealed a prototype 'smart' version of its Stingr helmet with a retractable visor.

It incorporates a front and rear light, as well as a head-up display inside the visor to provide those aforementioned warnings and feedback about other road users, such as brake light activation and impending crash risk warnings.

It will also provide metrics such as speed, power and heart rate, should you be more performance-minded with your riding.

The visor itself is retractable, as mentioned, but not simply with a shove. It is motorised and retracts via the push of a button or voice command – Star Command, do you read me? – and each time it retracts, it self-cleans not too dissimilarly from the cat’s eyes you see on the road.

No smart helmet would be complete without in-built audio, and the Stingr concept meets this brief with aplomb. It offers a 'near ear' audio system for warnings, navigation, phone calls, and presumably, playing Fields of Gold on repeat. That's accompanied by a duo of noise-cancelling microphones for those aforementioned voice commands, and buttons on the outer shell that let you adjust things like volume or what's being displayed.

Also notable, but less relevant to the topic at hand, is that the helmet uses a traditional fabric strap and buckle, rather than the Highbar plastic retention system it was unveiled with.

For both the bike and the helmet, it'll be no surprise to read that you need to remember to charge them in order for them to work. The bike, Canyon says, should be good for eight hours, while the helmet has a broad eight to fifteen hour claimed range.

Tastefully, Canyon has integrated an element of renewable energy into both bike and helmet to 'top up' these figures, courtesy of a dynamo hub in the bike and a solar panel on the helmet.

How much of all of this is already functional versus simply a theoretical concept is yet to be determined. Canyon says the bike displayed at Eurobike is simply a 3D-printed prototype, but it claims to have already proven the technology can function as intended.

It estimates a market introduction in "approximately three years."

Stage 2 of the Tour of Slovenia has been neutralised around 27 kilometres from the finish after the race doctor had to remain attending multiple victims of a previous downhill crash.

Stage 2's largely flat stage was moving into its final, decisive phase with a series of small, technical ascents and descents including the Cat. 4 climb of Jeruzalem when the race director first indicated to riders to slow down. Then after a couple of kilometres the race was stopped completely.

The crash on a sweeping downhill left-hand bend shortly before the neutralisation involved around five, as yet unidentified, riders, with the race doctor stopping to check on their condition.

At the time, the main peloton was heading the race on the 181.8-kilometre stage from Radlje ob Dravi to Ormož , shortly after a five-rider early break had been reeled in.

Before it stopped the race director called race leader and stage 1 winner Laurence Pithie (Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe) forward to explain that they had to stop the stage for safety reasons.

Riders first slowed then halted completely in the middle of a deeply rural area, taking on drinks and refuelling as they waited in warm sunshine.

After 15 minutes' wait, it was stilll unclear how quickly the race would begin again. Commissaires spent time going through the peloton and attempting to ensure those who were in a second group when the race was suspended, would then wait for the same amount of time as before the neutralisation once it got underway again.

After around 25 minutes, with staff returning to the stage, the race got underway again for the last 27 kilometres.

The original Big Trail started as a collaboration between Merida and UK dealers wanting something more rad than the average trail hardtail, but it’s become a super popular mix of tech-taming capability and everyday practicality the world over. For this latest version, Merida has made the geometry even more aggressive to create a serious rad ride that’ll kick ass on proper enduro trails while still letting you mount a kickstand for work days.

Design

Before you freak out about the idea of utility mounts making it look like you’ve stolen a Dutch nan’s shopping bike to hit the trails on, rest assured that the kickstand, rack, and full fender fixtures are very cleverly hidden. The only ‘basic’ looking part is the big seat stay gusset that can mount the ‘whale tail’ rear fender. That’s only a thin plate though and when you look closely at the top quality welding, hollowed out rear dropouts and the flowing hydroformed tube shapes, Merida’s metal working mastery is clear to see.

The big head tube allows the use of ‘Wire Port’ internal brake and gear routing through the Acros headset to keep the main tubes clear and clean, and Merida has capitalised on that with relatively slim and shallow, organically shaped top and down tubes. The down tube is long enough to fit two bottle cages on every size (500 + 700ml on XS – M, 2 x 700ml on L – XL) with an accessory mount in the top tube ‘armpit’. That leaves the oversized seat post straight and clear to take a long travel dropper (200mm on the ‘Long’ size I rode) in a stiffness and reliability boosting 34.9mm diameter. There’s only room for a 2.4in rear tyre between the curving rear stays though, which is a shame as fatter rear rubber is a nice option on a hardtail that’s begging to be ridden properly hard.

You do get a top chain guide mounted on the ISCG bolts around the bottom bracket though, and a 55mm chain line keeps the links clearer of mud on dirty days. Chaotic trail calmness gets another real audio and emotional upgrade from the fully foam-sleeved cables inside the mainframe and a dual-compound clip-on chainstay guard that even has hollow nodules to further deaden chain noise. While we’re on the subject of detailing, the seat tube clamp is a really neat, crisp, twin-band piece that elevates the overall aesthetic more than a basic forged option. Finally, the far end of the stays uses a distinctive angular ‘elbow’ above the dropouts to give clearance to fit the four-pot Shimano brakes on the chainstays rather than seat stays, where they could potentially reduce compliance. Do I even have to say it’s UDH too, or is that just expected on new bikes now?

Geometry

If you’ve been watching what Merida has done with the ‘Agilometer’ geometry on its One-Sixty, One-Forty and One-Twenty full-suspension bikes, then the angles and lengths of the new Big Trail will be less of a surprise. 64-degree head tube, 70mm BB drop and 480mm reach (on a size Long) are still proper rad for a mass-production hardtail rather than a niche cult bike. Merida has been slightly more conservative with their 76.5-degree seat angle compared to its crazy steep full-sus bikes, but it’s still very much a front and centred riding position. If you don’t want a super long stretch, then relatively short seat tubes mean you can size down without running into saddle height issues either, hence the use of Extra Short / Extra Long, etc. naming rather than Extra Small / Extra Large, etc.

Components and build

Merida has matched the more radical angles with a more control-focused build on the Big Trail too. That headlines with the Shimano XT brakes with a 200mm front rotor connecting to the trail through a 2.5in wide, triple MaxTerra compound Maxxis DHF tyre. A basic RockShox Pike fork separates them with 140mm of travel and Shimano hubs on the 30mm internal Merida rims create a sturdy wheelset. Hassle your Merida dealer to fit the tape, valves and sealant needed to turn them tubeless before you leave the shop though as they aren’t supplied. An EXO+ carcass on the rear Dissector tyre means you might not need an insert unless you’re really getting rowdy in the rocks. Deore gears deliver their usual remarkably smooth and accurate shifting reminder that you don’t need anything fancier. The low cost of replacement reduces the concerns about close passing trailside boulders too. While my test bike came with 170mm cranks, production bikes will have 165mm arms on all sizes but XL, which means more ground clearance to compensate for the super low bottom bracket.

The rest of the bike is Merida own brand, which is totally fine. I particularly appreciated the higher rise bars which help lifts the far away front end. The ‘Ergon–ish’ grips are comfy and the short coffin-shaped stem gets matching coffin-shaped spacers underneath. Merida has used a fixed-length dropper post rather than an adjustable one to save a bit of cash, and the lumpy lever mount isn’t the prettiest thing, but the lever action is actually really smooth. The Merida saddle is comfy enough and it comes with a mini-tool mounted underneath. The rear axle has a 4mm and 6mm hex head built into it too.

Ride, handling and performance

While all the detailing and smart spec is important to the overall package, what should dominate a lot of riders' decision to put the Big Trail on your short list is the ride vibe. That’s because the Big Trail isn’t just an exercise in extreme handling arithmetic, it’s clearly a bike that’s been ride tested into a really righteous balance for as much radness as you can handle. It only took about five minutes into the first ride for the super slack front end to save me. Turning a full facial slam into a self-steering emergency press-up save, when the back end went sideways on a wet root as I abseiled a janky drop. With that precedent set, the rest of the first ride was all about pushing harder and harder and realising just how much the Big Trail could handle. Actually, ‘handle’ sounds a bit half-hearted, the naturally centralised, feet-on-the-floor feel insists you attack all the sketchy stuff as fast as possible. It totally dominated snaking chutes that I’d been really concerned about rolling into beforehand and it’ll rail a turn like someone has you on a lunge rein.

It’s not just the geo either. Those slim, pressure-moulded main tubes set up an excellent blend of traction-boosting compliance without worrying twang or wander that could teach many steel bikes a lesson. There’s enough spring and life to really flatter the grip, comfort and smoothness of the base-level fork too, so I never worried about fully committing the front end into the most random rut, root and rock off-piste. As mentioned previously, the higher riser bars help lift the nose off drops or manualing through ditches. The seat angle means there’s enough weight over the front to keep the tyre steering and straight on steep scrambles too. It’s a good job the production bikes will have shorter cranks though, as I had to do a lot of half-cranking to stop tapping out on ruts and stepped sections. While it's relatively light for a trail hardtail, the build kit and grippy tyres mean it's no XC race bike if you're really into long rides and hefty climbs.

Inevitably, the rear end also makes things a game of two halves in terms of the amount of abuse coming from the back wheel. That massive seat tube definitely means sitting and pedalling through rough sections can be a jolting, momentum-spilling experience. Hover your butt off the saddle though and there was enough give in the stays to not find every old fracture in my ankles even on long, rough descents. Backing off ten percent on jagged and ragged technical climbs rather than charging bluntly at everything felt like it gave a thirty percent payback in terms of flow and grip too.

I can’t underestimate how calming the quietness of foam-wrapped cables, pneumatic chain protector, hushed Shimano rear hub, and even the genius spec of rattle-free non-finned pads in the XT brakes is when things might otherwise feel frantic either. It’s literally like wearing a full-face helmet in terms of reducing the acoustic anarchy that automatically spikes anxiety as soon as things start kicking off. Another sure sign that this is a bike that’s been created and crafted by real riders who understand what a big deal small things can be, not just desk jockeys looking over the shoulders of other brands.

Verdict

If you want to go on a forum to complain, then yeah, I’d rather the Big Trail had normal cable routing and space for a bigger rear tyre to reduce the game of two halves impact response. The riotously enjoyable, yet fail-forgiving ride of the radical geometry and compliant yet controlled front end outweighs those niggles by many multiples on genuinely big trails though. Both frame and parts pick are loaded with solid choices and smart details that really elevate the complete package too.

The death of Vitus and Ragley has dramatically reduced the options for affordable but properly radical hardtails, which makes the reshaped Merida even more welcome. You get the same frame on the £2,000 / €2,350 600 version here, the £1,500 / €1,175 Big Trail 500 (with a RockShox Psylo fork), and £1,100 / €1,300 300 version (Suntour XCR34 fork). Whatever model you buy, the fact that it’s a full-feature daily driver for commuting or utility use potentially makes it even better value

Test conditions

Surface: Natural off piste loam, roots and loose rock and a bit of kitty litter red run track

Trails: Natural Enduro DH and singletrack play runs and red and black grade trail center silliness

Tech spec: Merida Big Trail 600

Discipline: Trail

Price: £2,000 / €2,350 / not available in US

Head angle: 64 degrees

Frame material: Hydroformed aluminum alloy

Fork: RockShox Pike, 140mm travel

Size: X Short, Short, Medium, Long, X Long

Weight: 14.48kg (Long tested)

Wheel size: 29in

Chainset: Shimano Deore , 32T, 170mm arms with Hollowtech II bottom bracket.

Rear mech: Shimano Deore

Shifter: Shimano Deore

Cassette: Shimano Deore 12-speed 11-51T

Brakes: Shimano Deore XT hydraulic disc brakes with 200/180mm rotors

Tires: Maxxis DHF 3C MaxTerra 29x2.5in front and Maxxis Dissector 3C MaxTerra 29x2.4in rear tires

Wheels: Merida 30mm tubeless rims on Shimano hubs

Bars: Merida high rise alloy 780mm width

Stem: Merida alloy

Grips: Merida Ergo lock-on

Seatpost: Merida EXP TR 200mm dropper

Saddle: Merida TR

The Rockhopper has been part of Specialized’s lineup since 1985, and ever since its release it’s been one of the most sorted options for new riders getting into mountain biking.

The latest version we have here sports an impressively low weight and a smooth engaging ride, but with several design features severely limiting upgrade potential, it’s hard to recommend to riders who are wanting to enhance the performance of their ride as time goes on.

Does the Rockhopper have what it takes to be one of the best budget mountain bikes? Keep scrolling as we hit the trails to find out.

This review was originally published in October 2022. The Rockhopper Elite 29 is no longer available, but the nearest equivalent model is the Specialized Rockhopper Expert.

Design and geometry

At the heart of the Rockhopper Elite lies an A1 butted aluminium frameset that utilises a low-slung top tube, a chunky ovalized downtube and sleek stays that give a really premium look and feel. With a suitably low 305mm bottom bracket that positions you 62mm below the axles, and a 68.5 degree head angle paired with a 445mm reach (size Large), the Rockhopper projects well on the trail.

While short chainstays are all the rage, Specialized has opted to run a 440mm back centre here, which places the Rockhopper’s rear end at the longer end of the spectrum – I presume this move was made to better suit the Rockhopper’s XC intention, along with providing a balanced ride feel throughout the wide S to XXL size range.

Specialized has gone to great detail to ensure the Rockhopper’s aesthetic is as good as it can be, and by hiding rack mounts inside the stays and featuring a sleek chainstay bridge that doubles as a kickstand mounting point, the overall frame is pleasing to the eye. I'm a huge fan of the army green colourway too, but for those who aren’t, Specialized also offers the Rockhopper Elite in an additional two colourways.

Internal cable routing provides a neat and quiet ride, and there’s space for a fully internally routed dropper should you want to upgrade in the future. But while the cable routing is slick, the quality of the inside of the seat tube itself was sub-par, and due to a lack of reaming, my seat post was scratched up right from the off.

While lots of small details have been stressed, it's strange that several larger, fundamental parts of the design have been missed – the most obvious one being the straight non-tapered head tube. With pretty much all of the best aftermarket forks in 2022 only being available with a tapered 1-18/1.5in steerer option, it seems odd for Specialized to make such an oversight, which really limits the Rockhopper’s future upgrade potential. While I do understand that bikes in this price bracket have been hit the hardest following the global pandemic, I can’t help but feel this decision is limiting the Rockhopper’s general sustainability beyond 2023.

I tested the 29er version, but Specialized also offers the Rockhopper Elite with 27.5in wheels. While smaller wheels this would add an aspect of playfulness to the Rockhopper’s ride, I do think the bike's nature and focus is best suited to bigger 29in hoops.

Components

A straight head tube requires a straight steerer, but thankfully Specialized has selected the excellent RockShox Judy Solo Air fork to provide comfort and grip up front. Having an air-sprung damper means the fork can be adjusted specifically to any rider's weight, which in turn should offer an increase in composure over a more basic coil-sprung fork, similar to the sub-par option that’s fitted to the Trek Roscoe we tested alongside the Rockhopper. While the Judy itself is a component highlight, it’s strange to see that different frame sizes get different amounts of fork travel – the small gets 80mm, the medium gets 90mm, while large and bigger get 100mm; this is a specification choice that is going to give smaller riders a compromised performance on the trail.

Unfortunately, the same goes for stem lengths too, as larger frame sizes get longer stems, another specification choice that is going to offer different characteristics between the various frame sizes – in reality it just means the taller you are, the worse your handling characteristics are. Thankfully, the stem is an easy switch and the stock 740mm bar is a solid and comfortable shape, if a little narrow by current standards.

It’s not all negative in the component department, though and the 11-speed Shimano Deore provides smooth and reliable shifting throughout the enormous 11-51t cassette. The Deore derailleur also features a clutch which helps to keep chain slap to a minimum. But the best component on the whole bike is by far the brakes, and Shimano’s MT200 hydraulic disc units provide best-in-class power, feel and reliability.

Keeping the Rockhopper rolling is a set of 25mm internal rims laced to smooth rolling Formula hubs. Both the front and rear use a traditional quick-release axle system. Specialized’s own Fast Trak tyres roll fast but they’re undersized by modern standards and the relatively firm T5 rubber compound prioritises rolling resistance over grip.

Ride, handling and performance

Thanks to the generous bottom bracket drop, the Rockhopper feels natural and confident on the trail, and when riding back-to back with the more cramped and dated feeling Trek Roscoe 6, the Rockhopper’s low and stable riding position gave me the confidence to push harder almost everywhere. To complement this ‘in the bike’ feel I would like to see the head angle slackened a degree or two though, and while it would dilute the addictively snappy nature slightly, I do think it would unleash the Rockhopper’s full descending potential and maximise fun.

The Rockhopper provides procession and smoothness on the trail, and massively contributing to this smoothness is the Rockshox Judy fork. An air-sprung fork means rider-specific tune-ability to an individual’s weight, and the performance enhancement it gave over roots, through slick off-camber sections and over fast repeated hits just echoed how it’s a vital component for bikes around the $1,000/£1,000 price point. The fact that it’s a straight steerer matched with a non-tapered head tube is a real sour grape though, as it leaves next to no upgrade potential in the fork department should you be looking for even greater performance down the line.

The low 13.2kg weight means the Rockhopper feels eager to surge up and along the trail – something that encouraged me to get out the saddle and sprint through the next section of track with enthusiasm. Along with the fact that the huge range cassette provides a suitable gear for any gradient, I think the Rockhopper would be a stellar option for riders who favour climbing and long-ride efficiency. The biggest thing that limits riding fluidity is the lack of a dropper post, and it’s something I’d like to see on a hardtail at this price.

The best-in-class brakes from Shimano provide the feel and power to slow speeds in a controlled manner with just one finger on the lever. But the biggest cause of compromised traction are Specialized’s own FastTrak tires, and while they do roll fast the hard rubber compound and narrow width proved to be sketchy as soon as I remotely begin to push on the trail. As a result, swapping to a bigger volume gripper front tire would be the first alteration I’d make to the Rockhopper Elite.

Verdict

Summarising the Rockhopper is tricky as its composed shape, great feel and low weight provide some highly desired traits on the trail. However, while I understand bikes in this price bracket have been the main victims of the recent global pandemic, it’s hard to recommend a bike to someone that is heavily compromised in component longevity and upgradability. That being said, if you think you’re a rider who will keep things stock and just ride, the Rockhopper’s trail prowess, excellent brakes and sorted gearing make it a great riding option that should provide years of fun.

Tech specs: Specialized Rockhopper Elite 29

• Model name: Rockhopper Elite 29
• Discipline: Entry-level trail
• Head angle: 68.5 degrees
• Frame material: Alloy
• Sizes: S to XXL
• Weight: 13.2kg (large tested)
• Wheel size: 29x2.3in
• Suspension (front): 100mm travel, 46mm offset
• Groupset: Shimano Deore 1x11-speed
• Crank: Stout 30T alloy
• Brakes: Shimano MT200 with 180/160mm rotors
• Tires: Specialized Fast Trak T5 29x2.35in tires on 25mm rims
• Bars: Stout Mini Rise 740mm
• Seat post: Unbranded 31.6mm

Welcome to another new subscriber perk on Cyclingnews! Before we drop our latest review on the Cyclingnews Tech YouTube channel, we're giving our subscribers exclusive early access to a video breakdown of a bike that certainly left our Senior Tech Writer, Will Jones, with split opinions: the Stooge Rambler.

A boutique brand based in Shropshire, Stooge makes bikes different from the norm and has been pushing the boundaries of massive tyres and progressive geometry for some time now.

But will its head-turning looks and adaptability make it the perfect companion for when riding off-road? Watch Will's full video review below, before it officially goes live, to see how the Stooge Rambler gets on.

Cyclingnews subscribers can also watch our ever-expanding archive of bike reviews over on the Cyclingnews app.

Not yet subscribed? Fear not, you can get early access to this in-depth video review, plus a whole host of great features, such as our Cyclingnews Labs testing, unlimited access to our unrivalled racing coverage, and member-exclusive long-read features on the biggest storylines within cycling, by becoming a Cyclingnews subscriber.

{kiosq_button:center}

Chinese bikes are one of perhaps two overarching themes in road bikes, along with ‘aero at the front, lightweight at the rear’. While it’s safe to say that a great proportion of ‘Western’ frames are manufactured in China, those bikes that are fully and proudly Chinese are very much upsetting the apple cart, and are now challenging the best road bikes on the market for top dog status and, more importantly, for your money.

In order to furnish you with objective and subjective testing to help inform your purchasing decisions, we’ve begun incorporating these Chinese bikes into our testing. We’ve run the X-Lab AD9 through the wind tunnel before giving it a full review, and at the time of writing, I am due to receive the new Incolour SSR, and my colleague Tom is in the process of testing a new Winspace. Now, though, it’s the turn of the Seka Spear, a bike (or frameset, I should probably say) that has been at the very forefront of the hype train.

The Spear has class-leading aero, a superbly low weight, it’s very speccable at point of sale, offers a ‘race’ geometry in some sizes, and comes in at a price that undercuts the likes of the Specialized Tarmac by a fair wedge, a bike it shares basically its entire geometry with. On paper, it should be able to claim status as the best road bike going, but there is a big catch: it’s just not stiff enough.

I was lucky enough to pinch the frame from our video manager, Jamie, and cut about on my home roads before taking the Spear out to the Alps to zing it up and down some mountains to see what it’s really about. It’s good, but I don’t think it’s quite good enough for ‘best’ status.

Design and aesthetics

When I first laid eyes on the Seka Spear when it arrived, kitted out with some very garish No.6 wheels, I thought it looked far too over-the-top. The silver and purple paint put me in mind of a Dairy Milk wrapper, or perhaps a Premier Inn lobby, but with a more muted set of Enve SES 4.5 wheels, I must say my attitude to the frame has softened considerably.

The frame itself is lovely and skinny, very much in the vein of the Tarmac, which belies the extremely impressive aero package on offer. With a rider on, this is the fastest all-rounder we’ve ever tested, only being beaten by three full-on aero machines. Where it really seems to shine is at higher yaw angles, which likely has something to do with the ‘Wind Eye’; the bifurcated seatstay insertions that create two large holes where they join the seat tube. We obviously can’t attribute performance to a single feature, but it’s at least not holding it back in any way. If you want to have a deep dive into the aero package, then we’ve got a whole Seka Spear wind tunnel deep dive for you to pore over.

The frame is available in two guises: a standard version weighing in at 780g, or the RDC version (Race Day Combatant), tipping the scales at 685g, both for an effectively unpainted matte black frame in a size Medium. I tested the RDC variety.

As well as two tiers of frame, separated by $600, you also have the standard run of sizes plus a ‘Race’ geometry in both medium and large that are a little longer and a little lower. In geometry terms, the Spear is effectively the same as the Specialized Tarmac, but with a smidge shorter reach and higher stack in the standard option and a smidge longer and lower in the race version. I tested the standard geometry.

I’ll get into value later on, but from what I can see you have to order a Seka Rapier cockpit with the frameset at an additional cost of $500, and a seatpost at a cool $200. The latter isn’t an issue, but as I’ll get into shortly, the former is. While it comes in a great many widths and lengths, it is very flexible and not one I got along with at all.

You can only buy the Spear as a frameset, and given the impressive specs, I wanted to give it a fair crack of the whip, so the aforementioned Enves were paired with a full Shimano Dura-Ace groupset and 30mm Continental GP5000 S TR tyres in a build that’s pretty hard to fault.

Performance

The Seka Spear is in many ways an excellent machine. The geometry, either derived from the Tarmac or happened upon by coincidental convergent evolution, is brilliant, and in combination with the low weight makes for an engaging ride. The real issue is that neither the frame nor the cockpit is stiff enough to make the most of what the geometry is offering up.

The cockpit itself is ergonomically and aerodynamically sound, but there’s simply too much flex, especially in the drops. This is compounded by a frame that, by our lab testing, has a very flexible bottom bracket (less stiff even than my steel Fairlight Strael), but the thing I found most frustrating was the amount of torsional flex you can put through the thing, meaning that with the saddle braced against your leg, the bike can shift under you more than you lean in cornering. It doesn’t feel more flexible than a light steel frame, but it certainly doesn’t feel as stiff as a moderately stiff carbon one.

It’s not scary in any way like the Felt Nexar either, but it gives a feeling of imprecision in the bends that you simply don’t have with stiffer machines like the Pinarello Dogma, Scott Addict RC, and the Specialized Tarmac SL8.

This is a shame, because the geometry is excellent. It’s stable at high speeds without ever being dull, and the turn-in is immediate without being so lively that you have to back off. It sits right in that Goldilocks zone.

The flexibility does mean it eats up road chatter and poor surfaces very well, however, and as a bike for long, fast days without being ground to a fine powder, it’s excellent, and at times when descending Alpe d’Huez during some resurfacing works I was glad of the additional compliance. In fact, I set my fastest ever time down the hill on the Spear (361 / 77,749 at the time of writing, thank you very much), but I know that if it had that pip and zing of more taut frames, I could have gone faster.

The low weight is certainly dreamy uphill, especially on sustained efforts. On those little raises where a sprint can muscle you to the top the stiffness means you feel a little less connected to the rear end at max attack, but it doesn’t skip about either like I find with some very stiff machines under high load out of the saddle.

The aero package is certainly satisfying, aided by the ability to fit a cockpit of suitably modern (by which I mean narrow) proportions, flexibility aside. On the flat it ticks away very well, though because it’s more compliant than many bikes, it doesn’t feel all that fast on the flat, as humans perceive speed primarily through that high-frequency vibration that comes broadly under ‘road buzz’. Feeling fast and being fast are different things though, as evidenced by the Cervélo S5 for example, which is phenomenally fast but never really felt it.

Time, and a lack of suitable 32mm tyres at my disposal, meant I wasn’t able to max out the stated tyre clearance, but I suspect this would turn the Spear into a brilliant poor-surface all-road-lite machine (no, I know we don’t need yet another new genre of bikes). Despite the RDC designation on the fork crown, it sadly doesn’t quite feel like a true race-ready machine. It’s not far off, but I suspect the designers prioritised weight over stiffness, and with the aero package on offer I’d take a handful of extra grams in the frame and cockpit to make it feel more like a coiled spring.

Value

Given that the hype around the Spear is that it’s a ‘Tarmac killer’ it makes sense to compare it to the SL8, though as I write this I am aware that a new version is imminent, having spotted one at the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes recently. All the same, the non-RDC varietal is about $600 less than the standard Tarmac frameset, and the RDC varietal is about $2k cheaper than the S-Works model.

On paper, especially compared to the S-Works, it’s an absolute bargain. With that ‘spare’ two grand, you could get a better cockpit and some very good wheels, but with the guts of the machine feeling as they do it’s still going to feel a lesser bike. I don’t honestly think many customers are weighing up an S-Works or an RDC Seka, and more likely is an RDC Seka or a standard Tarmac, which retail for a near identical value; get the Tarmac.

The Seka is good, but the Tarmac is excellent, and while I appreciate that $600 is a lot of money, if you’re erring on the side of economy and choosing a non-RDC spear over a standard Tarmac I’d perhaps suggest saving up some money or trimming the grams elsewhere in your build sheet to get a better chassis.

Verdict

By the numbers the Seka Spear promises an awful lot, and it actually delivers in a great many ways. It’s extremely light, it has a stellar aero package for an all-rounder, it looks cool, is decently configurable at point of sale, and for a Chinese bike it’s relatively easy to get a hold of. The geometry offers up a handling package that is good, but not great only by dint of a lack of system stiffness from the frame and cockpit.

That’s really the only fault I have with the Spear. I think perhaps it's because my expectations were so high that I came away from my testing feeling a touch disappointed.

It’s a good bike, but not an incredible one, and certainly not a machine to topple the best all-rounders from more established brands… yet. Give it another iteration with a greater focus on stiffness and even if nothing else changes this would be a hell of a bike.

Bikes tend to come in regular cycles of around 3-4 years. You can’t set your watch by it, but it’s unusual for a bike to leapfrog up a place in the development order. Bianchi’s old Oltre aero bike, still trucking along under Bahrain Victorious, and still carrying the legacy of an immediate UCI ban for its aero fins, has been around since 2022, and was the bike we expected to see updated for the modern era next by Bianchi. However, the Italian brand announced today that it has instead opted to overhaul - and totally redesign - the Specialissima, which last got a do-over in 2023.

Previously the brand’s lightweight machine, it has been morphed to become an aero all-rounder; a one-bike solution for a team that already only uses one bike.

A familiar design story

The trend of bike design in the past 18-24 months has been aero up front, lightweight at the rear, and the new Specialissima hits the brief dead on. The back end is very reminiscent of the old model, with very thin chainstays and even more diminutive seatstays, joining in a way that’s almost wishbone-like to the seat tube.

The seat tube itself, along with the top tube (at least most of it until you get right up to the head tube) looks very similar to the old one, too. Gone is the upward inflection of the top tube where it meets the seatpost however; likely a design flourish that, while eye-catching, was perhaps not the most aerodynamically efficient.

In the down tube, fork legs, and head tube, you can still see the genetics of the outgoing model, but everything is plumper without losing the angular touches. It’s almost as if, from a drive-side view at least, the front end of the bike has been inflated slightly. The similarities visually are underpinned by a geometry that matches the old version exactly, save for some tweaks to the reach figures in the cockpit. The more chunky front end hasn’t made it a heavier frame, however, with a claimed 40g saving over the old model in a size 55, tipping the scales at 750g for the frame.

There is a new cockpit to go with the Specialissima, which makes sense given it’s the very leading edge of the bike. There’s a touch of the Y1Rs about it, but significantly less wild; a little upsweep, a little forward sweep. It’s more akin to a painting of a languid seagull on a summer postcard than a spaceship from a distant galaxy, and has a claimed improvement of 25% over the old cockpit in terms of aerodynamics. The speed at which this is found isn’t stated, but as other claims are made at 50km/h, we assume the same is true here.

The fork, too, is claimed to be 14% more efficient through the air, and when combined with the cockpit and frame, plus we must assume the new RC 49R Reparto Course wheels, there is a total claimed benefit of 16 watts over the old Specialissima.

We don’t have our own aero data for the old Specialissima - nor the new one, for the time being at least - so are unable to place where the new one would be hypothetically if these gains are realised, but to add context a 16 watt difference is just over two watts greater than the difference between the fastest and slowest bikes we’ve ever tested. We do test at 45km/h, though, so at 50km/h the differences will be greater.

Three tiers will be available: Specialissima (SRAM Rival, Shimano 105 and Ultegra) starting at €5,200, Specialissima Pro (SRAM Force, Shimano Ultegra) starting at €7,700, and Specialissima RC (Reparto Corse - SRAM Red, Shimano Dura-Ace) starting at €11,500.

Is this the end of the road for the Oltre?

Bike brands have slowly been consolidating their efforts into single race machines for some time now, with some notable exceptions. R.I.P. Specialized Venge, sayonara Cannondale SystemSix. Yes, Tadej Pogačar still cuts about on an aero bike, but the dawn of the Colnago Y1Rs has meant it’s farewell to the V5Rs for good. Visma have access to the Cervélo R5, but you can count on one hand the times they’ve used it over the S5. Perhaps the fly in the ointment here is Ridley, with Uno-X rocking the very aero Noah Fast 3.0 exclusively, but have been seen testing a feathery prototype at the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes.

With this in mind, it becomes increasingly hard to see how the Oltre will make a comeback in the near term, and my view is that it’ll fall by the wayside in the same way as the SystemSix. Teams generally seem to want to work with a single race platform, and the cost of developing multiple varietals can be a huge financial drain on bike brands at a time when the industry isn’t exactly flush with spare cash, and when, with enough R&D, you can make a bike that hits the aero targets and is light enough to cause mechanics to worry about the looming scales of a UCI comissaire, it’s a hard sell to make a machine just for those few pan flat stages.

The Specialized Crux 5 had possibly the most successful launch of any bike ever.

It leaked at the Scottish UCI Gravel Worlds qualifier, the Gralloch, beneath Gee Schreurs as she rode to victory, and then after an official launch on Thursday, it took six of the 10 wide-podium spots in the Elite 200-mile races at an ultra-muddy Unbound on Saturday. For a gravel race bike, it has already proven it can race.

It was also tested among a cohort of competitor gravel race bikes here at Cyclingnews, and spoiler alert: it did well.

But before we get into the minutiae and results of that test, here are some basic details about what is still a very new bike at the time of writing. I'll spare you a regurgitated press release and instead outline some of the headline claims from Specialized.

1. It's no longer a 'cross bike and has instead gone all-in on gravel racing.
2. It's 15.2 watts more aerodynamic than its predecessor.
3. It boasts 55mm tyre clearance front and rear.
4. Builds start at 6.9kg with lightweight wheels, growing to 7.1kg for aero wheels.
5. It's mega expensive, at 14,000 US dollars for the top-spec S-Works model.

Wind tunnel testing

As mentioned, Cyclingnews had exclusive early access to wind-tunnel-test the bike against a cohort of competitors, including the Wilier Rave SLR ID2, the Argon 18 Anti Matter, the Trek Checkmate SLR, and the ever-popular Lauf Seigla.

The results are already live in our full gravel race bikes wind tunnel test write-up. But for those of you who want to focus solely on the S-Works Crux, you're in the right place. We'll be doing similar for other popular bikes from that test in the coming weeks, too.

Protocols and caveats

As ever, we used the wind tunnel at the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub and, for the most part, mimicked the test conditions used in our road bike wind tunnel tests.

This means we tested each bike in a size 56cm (or equivalent), both with and without a rider, in the bike's as-sold setup, and then again with a pair of 'control' wheels. We tested each bike at seven different wind angles ranging from -15° to +15° (in 5° increments), and the results below will show a weighted average.

Rather than the 40km/h speed we use in the road bike tests, we adjusted the speed slightly to 35km/h to better reflect what you'd experience in gravel races.

To caveat that, I am aware 35km/h is still fast for gravel, but we settled on this speed for a few reasons.

Firstly, to ensure accuracy. The slower the wind speed, the less force is placed on the force balance inside the tunnel, which ultimately is what measures the drag. What's more, with lower resolution and testing with a real rider, slight movements would have an outsized effect on the result. We could have tested for longer at each yaw angle to offset this, but holding the correct position for longer has its own issues, as it can lead to more movement as the rider fatigues. Therefore, testing at as high a speed as is relevant made the most sense.

Secondly, I did some research into average speeds of entire races, and average speeds of key points within them (such as chases or attacks), and found that 30-35km/h was a good balance in competitive racing.

We used each bike as it would be supplied by the manufacturer, save for a couple of standardisations: We added bottles and cages, since that's how riders will use the bike in the real world. We swapped the 45mm Specialized Pathfinder tyres for a 45mm Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH control tyre to ensure no bike gained an unfair advantage from speccing slick tyres.

We removed the out-front computer mount simply because not all bikes come with one. And we swapped the S-Works Power Mirror saddle for an Ergon All Road SR. This gave us a consistent 80mm point to measure to when setting the saddle setback, and meant no bike was unfairly hampered by a 3D-printed saddle (which can catch the wind when there's no rider sitting on top).

For the extra test using the 'control' wheels, we used a pair of Enve G SES 6.7 wheels shod with 50mm Vittoria Terreno Dry tyres. I feel that 50mm is a good balance of progressively wide, but not so crazy that half the bikes couldn't fit them.

Confidence margin

The below data is subject to the following confidence interval.

This is calculated by testing the same bike at the start of the day, then again at the end. Given that the same identical setup can achieve two different results, we cannot trust that any other bike is more accurate than this difference.

Results

Now, to get into the results. I will first share the raw data as it comes out of the tunnel. Then the processed data, which takes the average CdA from each of the seven yaw angles and calculates a weighted average that better reflects real-world conditions. Specifically, we weigh heavily toward zero degrees - or a direct headwind, as per the research and PHD of Cannondale's Nathan Barry.

Bike only: Stock wheelset

The Crux doesn't have the most aero-looking design, at least based on common convention, but it's clearly better able to slip through the wind than the Trek Emonda ALR and most of its gravel-focussed peers.

Since there's no rider on the bike here, a bike's ability to harness the wind at wider yaw angles becomes clearer, signalled by how flat this V-shaped line becomes. If you check out the same graph for all-out aero bikes like the Factor One or Colnago Y1Rs, you'll see it becomes more of an M shape, as the deep tubes help the bike to sail in the wind.

Next up, I will work out the weighted average of these data points and use it to calculate the watts required to overcome the aero drag. Those calculations won't include things like rolling resistance, but it's only the aero differences we're interested in here, not the absolutes.

We're pretty confident that thanks to the Crux's low weight and 55mm tyre clearance, it would outshine its competitors in a comparative rolling resistance test, but such a test would be fraught with variables. It is therefore easier to measure the rolling resistance difference of tyre models and tyre widths alone, both of which we've done.

• What is the fastest gravel tyre setup?
• Is a wider tyre a faster tyre? We combine aero and rolling data to find out

The above graph shows the watts required for the bike to overcome aero drag, and that the Crux is in 2nd place, just 1.21w (+/- 0.26w error) behind the much deeper-tubed Argon 18 Anti Matter.

There's around a kilo difference between the two, but bear in mind that the Argon 18 was equipped with the slightly heavier SRAM Force XPLR.

The graph above is a slightly clearer view of the differences between each bike.

And in the graph above, you can see every bike we've ever tested, listed as a difference against the baseline Trek Emonda, with the weighted CdA solved for watts at 40km/h, for consistency against the road bikes.

Some context to add here is that this baseline bike is kept completely unchanged from test to test, and it is retested at the start and finish of every single test session, so the differences between it and whatever cohort of new bikes we're testing are valid no matter when the test occurred.

Evidence that this works is that we tested the same Scott Foil in 2024 and 2025, and it performed similarly in both tests (bike-only and with-rider) over the two test days. In the bike-only test, it was 34.98 watts faster in 2024, and 35.66 watts faster in 2025; a difference of just 0.68 watts. With the rider on, it was 19.79 watts faster in 2024 and 19.15 watts faster in 2025; a difference of 0.64 watts.

Especially relevant today, though, is that we kept it in the road bike position, rather than adapting it to a gravel position. There are two reasons for this. First, the amount of adjustment needed to get it into a gravel position was impossible to achieve without a very strange stem setup. And second, road and gravel bikes do put you into a different position. By testing it this way with the road position, we could see a fairer difference in how the gravel bikes compare to the road bikes, in a way that is likely to be experienced.

Bike and rider

The 'road' position of the Emonda makes a world of difference to the results here, so please don't let your takeaway be that the fastest gravel bike is a 10-year-old road bike.

But for a consistent comparison machine, it's as good as we need, and comes with the nice bonus of allowing us to compare (loosely, given not everyone will adopt the same positions as we did) across genres.

With a rider on, the Crux lands a very impressive top spot, albeit well within the error margin of the Wilier, the Argon 18, and the Pinarello. If we couple this with the bike's impressive weight – a full kilo lighter than the similarly-specced Rave SLR – and ample tyre clearance, it's a very strong case for concluding the Crux is the fastest gravel bike we tested.

Here's a clearer view of the differences between each of the bikes. The Crux and Rave are super close, separated by just 0.05 watts.

It's very caveated by the positional difference and the fact that we've got gravel tyres fitted here, but as the fastest gravel bike we tested (with a rider), the Crux is the closest to all the aero bikes we've tested. It's still in the region of 20 watts off the Cinelli Aeroscoop, though, and 28 watts behind its road-going stablemate, the S-Works Tarmac SL8.

When we tested gravel tyre widths, we found the difference between a 40mm road tyre (Goodyear Vector) and a 47mm Vittoria Terreno Dry gravel tyre to be 8.7 watts when using the Zipp XPLR wheels, and 6.6 watts on Hunt CGR wheels. That's roughly what I'd expect to save if we swapped the Crux onto a road tyre, and it helps you understand the deficit in a slightly more comparable way.

With all that said, I am planning on running a more in-depth head-to-head between the Crux and the Tarmac soon. However, since a new Specialized has been spotted at the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes in recent days, I'm hoping Specialized will oblige me with the opportunity to test it against that. Watch this space.

Bike only, Enve wheels

A similar graph to the one above, but the Crux has actually dropped down the table a little, now into 4th.

When we calculate the weighted average and solve for watts, the Crux sits in third.

When we swapped in the Enve G SES 6.7 wheels and 50mm Vittoria T30 tyre, all bikes improved.

That could come down to the difference in tread between the Cinturato and the T30 tyres, but given the depth of the Enves, I'd be surprised if that's not the real reason.

Still, in a complement to the Roval Terra Aero CLX wheels that come on the Crux, it was Specialized that improved the least, at just 2.37 watts.

Essentially, this says the Roval wheels were the closest to the Enves, in a cohort that also included 3T's Discus, Miche's Graff Aero, and Zipp's 303 XPLR S.

Conclusions

As the most aero bike with a rider on, and 2nd place as bike only, the Crux 5 has held its own very well despite others here having a more obviously aero-looking design, such as the deep head tube of the Argon 18 and the integrated aero bottles of the Wilier.

Importantly, though, the Crux is a full kilo lighter than the competitors that accompany it on the podium.

It weighed 7.1kg on our scales, with Red XPLR, (empty) bottles in the cages, no pedals, no out front mount, and no sealant in the Pathfinder tyres it comes with.

Under those same conditions, the Argon 18 is 8.2kg (albeit in a Force XPLR spec, as tested), while the Wilier Rave SLR ID2 is 8.1kg with Red XPLR.

With that in mind, and the fact that neither beats it on tyre clearance, the Crux is the fastest gravel bike out there right now.

That could be about to change, though, because Giant just showed off an interesting-looking contender, Factor has a new wide-tyred aero bike on the way, Ridley has what is essentially a gravel-going Noah Fast coming, and Canyon's been busy too. Once again, watch this space.

Further questions

As ever, our testing has led to as many questions as answers. For example, I'm now curious how many watts would separate the Crux 5 and the Tarmac SL8 if we were to match the tyres and the rider positions?

Similarly, are those Roval wheels actually two watts slower than the new Enves, or is some of that down to the tyre tread? And how does the width affect it?

Likewise, what's the difference between the Terra CLX Aero wheels and the Terra CLX III (which are shallower and weigh 261g less)?

The media circus around bike races, particularly big, tech-heavy ones like the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (previously the Critérium du Dauphiné), is quite amusing sometimes, so indulge me for a second and I'll lift the lid.

Some bikes we spot through nous, tip-offs, and a bit of sneaking. The new Specialized Tarmac Sl9 is one of those, but sometimes we just get told a bike will be available to come and photograph in advance of the race. The new Cube Litening Aero prototype is one such bike.

I turn up at a pre-arranged time along with several other media outlets (unbeknownst to one another), all shoot the bike en masse, and then get told we can't use the images "until tomorrow", so have to form a gentleman's agreement, because this is a small industry and it doesn't pay to sour relations over something like this.

We aren't told anything about the machine because it's a prototype, beyond a distant muttering of a 2028 release (which sounds too far off to be true) so have to glean things just from what we see. Then the bike is promptly whisked away and we disperse again to hotel rooms across Grenoble to ponder and mull over a chilled rosé (in my case, at least).

Anyway, here's a new Cube prototype; let's see what we can see, shall we? It's certainly a new form compared to the current Litening Aero, though I will caveat this with the fact that general angles of the frame are compact due to it being a size 50 machine, i.e. very small.

It's well and truly new road bike season. I've already bought you the first proper spy shots of the brand-new Specialized Tarmac SL9 at a race, a bike that is modestly different but clearly targeting greater aerodynamic efficiency as a one-bike system for Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe and, inevitably, all Specialized teams down the line.

Following that, we had another slightly aero prototype all-rounder from Van Rysel to keep everyone on their toes.

Ridley, though, is taking a different approach. Its main sponsored team, Uno-X, has been smashing about happily for some time on the excellent Ridley Noah Fast 3.0, a bike I really enjoyed riding. It was, however, a very single-minded beast, and while it handled punchy rises well, it wasn't a bike destined for the high mountains.

It seems the Belgian brand has been working on a new lightweight machine, one that has been spotted at the Giro d'Italia Women's race under Mie Bjørndal Ottestad.

Some judicious browsing of Getty Images later, and we can clearly see a svelte frame, with a 'PROTOTYPE' UCI sticker on the down tube and 'PROTOTYPE' written on the fork legs; that'll be a prototype, then.

While we can't say for sure what model this is, given the current designation, it seems likely it'll be an updated Falcn RS, a bike that, in Ridley's own words, "will help you conquer the highest mountains and the exceptional aerodynamics of the frame and the fork will convert every watt into pure speed when you’re in the breakaway."

The current Falcn RS has a generous 34mm tyre clearance, and it looks like this could be increased further still by the looks of the fork crown; it's extremely roomy. It also appears to keep the same cutout in the non-drive side leg where the brake calliper sits, but perhaps to a slightly less severe degree.

The top tube looks to be slimmer in the vertical direction, but with a slight triangle cross-section, a trend (the narrow bit at least) that's common among many new bikes targeting a low mass. The shaping behind the head tube appears to be more of a smooth curve, but that could just be the angle of the images from the race.

The head tube has a ridge, too, about 2/3 of the way up, which is very much akin to the Speed Sniffer found on the Specialized Tarmac SL8 and new SL9 that caused much consternation at launch, and also the head tube of the Pinarello Dogma, which received zero backlash despite being basically the same thing.

It appears the cutout in the seat post has gone from these images, though again, you can't see it totally side on. What you can see is the seat tube widening and flattening where the bottle cage is mounted, perhaps in an effort to smooth the airflow around the rear bottle, the frame, and onto the rear wheel.

From what can be seen here, it looks like a bike more than capable of troubling the UCI's weight limit.

Happily, having seen these images, I was able to high tail it over to the Uno-X team hotel at the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, and lo and behold there it was, lined up next to the existing Noah Fast aero bikes and several Dean time trial machines, so we can get a more in depth look.

I was told by the mechanics that the bike we saw was 7kg, though we suspect it would be more than possible to make it lighter than that.

Van Rysel has had quite the stratospheric rise. Its initial foray into WorldTour machines, the RCR-Pro, was an all-rounder that promised remarkable value, at least in the top spec versions (the lower tier options less so, as evidenced in our Van Rysel RCR-Pro review).

This was then swiftly followed by the very aero Van Rysel RCR-F (F for fast), which was an all-out aero bike. Given the heavy focus on aero, it's no surprise that the riders of Decathlon-CMA-CGM opt to use it at all times, somewhat putting the RCR-Pro in the shade.

Now, though, it seems the Lille-based brand has been cooking up a new lightweight all-rounder to try and compete with the likes of the Specialized Tarmacs (a new version of which has been spotted at this race, too) and Pinarello Dogmas in the high mountains, likely spurred on by the similarly meteoric rise of star GC prospect, Paul Seixas.

The Critérium du Dauphiné, or Tour Auvergne Rhône Alpes to give it the full new title, has revealed this new Van Rysel, and it seems likely it'll replace the RCR-Pro.

In a similar fashion to a great many modern all-rounder machines, this new bike appears to have a focus on aero up front, and low weight at the back, where the air is dirtier and more unpredictable.

The curved seat tube remains, but it is kinked from the bottom bracket rather than straight with a cutout, and it and the seat stays look to be narrower in diameter to save some grams. The chain stays too look to be slimmer, but still intersect the seat tube with the slightly widened stance of the current RCR-Pro.

The down tube and top tube are relatively similar in proportions, but up front, the head tube is deeper. The most drastic difference is at the forks, which have deeper legs that begin to taper as they reach the brake calliper mount. This should aid the leading-edge aerodynamics.

Our own wind tunnel testing has shown that all-rounders can beat full aero bikes in the lab, and while there is a chance that this new machine could be a range killer, replacing both current models, we also know the RCR-F is a fast bike, and it seems unlikely that the team would turn their backs on a bike that's only a year old. This situation happened with Cannondale when it effectively mothballed the very aero System Six, but that bike was very old by that point.

Curiously, however, while the bike was out for Seixas at the team bus, the Frenchman opted to ride the current RCR-Pro instead. He may switch on the road, as the black machine was still on the roof of the team car, but it's clear it's still very much in testing.

The Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (formerly the Critérium du Dauphiné) is always a hotbed of new tech. Fresh bikes get released into the wild for field testing before the Tour de France.

This year, this included the new Specialized Tarmac SL9, seen at the Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe camp. While the bike was interesting in its own right, closer inspection of the images reveals a sticker under the downtube bearing the name 'Remco Evenepoel', appearing to suggest the Belgian could make a surprise return to racing earlier than planned ahead of the Tour de France.

Another clue is that the chain on the bike is gold, which Evenepoel nearly always uses as the Olympic champion. However, the Belgian was also still training in Calpe on Thursday and Friday, according to his Strava, so any arrival in the south of France would be a late one.

Red Bull released a seven-rider roster in a press release about Maxim Van Gils' return to racing on Friday, but have been very quiet on their social media. Alongside Van Gils should be Dani Martinez, Luke Tuckwell, Haimar Etxeberria, Gianni Vermeersch, Callum Thornley and Finn Fisher-Black, but not Evenepoel.

At the start of May, it was reported that Enevepoel had axed the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes from his calendar, opting not to race at all for a full 69 days in the build-up to the Tour de France to focus on 'specific training'.

If Evenepoel is to appear at the race it'll certainly be earlier than planned, and while there may be a desire to get some racing in the legs it is also worth remembering that the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes is the last race before the Tour to feature a team time trial, perhaps offering the Belgian specialist an irresistible final chance to tune this discipline up with a race number on before the opening stage in Barcelona and a prime opportunity to wear the yellow jersey.

Should Evenepoel line up at the start on Sunday, it will certainly give pre-race favourite Paul Seixas cause for concern, and will certainly mean he doesn't have the race all his own way. There is every possibility that if this is a surprise pre-Tour shakedown, Evenepoel will be flanked by a strong squad with a lot of firepower.

Subscribe to Cyclingnews for unlimited access to our Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and Tour de Suisse coverage. Don't miss any of the breaking news, race analysis, and expert insight as the riders make their final preparations for Le Tour. Plus, access the Cyclingnews app to follow the action on the go! Join today.

The Critérium du Dauphiné, or the Tour Auvergne Rhône Alps to give it its new name, is the traditional place to spot all the latest new tech in use before the Tour de France. The Specialized rumor mill has been running on overdrive in recent weeks, with the launch of the new Crux mere weeks ago to keep the gravel gang happy. Now, though, attention will turn to the road, and what looks to definitely be a new Tarmac SL9, as spotted with Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe.

The bike was hidden by the team mechanics when they spotted my camera, but thanks to an enterprising attitude, a dark outfit, and a childhood playing hide and seek I was able to sneak into the undergrowth behind the team's hotel car park and get some spy shots to confirm it was the new machine, before making a break for it and trying to get some closer snaps with some success.

Leaked images online abound, including a brief roof rack spot last week after an image was shared online, but in the flesh we can see for sure what the direction of travel is for Specialized’s flagship machine.

It is clearly still an all-rounder, rather than jumping wholesale into the aero market, though there are some clear new concessions to cheating the wind. Given the Tarmac SL8 was particularly fast for an all-rounder in our wind tunnel testing, we suspect this will make the SL9 a very fast machine indeed.

The eye is immediately drawn to the new seat tube, now infilled up to the dropped seatstays to provide a shroud for the rear wheel. This is now very much par for the course on all aero bikes like the Canyon Aeroad, but has the effect of making the silhouette a little more muscular.

The seat stays themselves look a little fatter to me, and maybe the chain stays too, but it's marginal at best. Perhaps there were stiffness demands from pro riders if this was the case, though our stiffness testing revealed the SL8 to be a relatively stiff bike despite being fabricated from relatively silly tubes.

The seat post looks essentially the same as the current model, so it's likely the two may be compatible. It also looks to have the standard Roval Rapide handlebar, as per the current generation, perched above the Speed Sniffer nosecone.

Speaking of the speed sniffer, this still remains (in fact, the main triangle looks extremely similar in form to the old model), but the fork legs appear to have been deepened, but forwards, such that the leading edge of the fork crown is in line with the protuberance of the head tube. It has the effect of appearing to steepen the head tube angle, much like the very extreme forks on the Factor ONE, though it is suspected that the geometry, if it is changed at all, will only feature minor tweaks. The forks also look to be wider set, too, in keeping with modern trends.

Beyond that it's business as usual, as much as we can tell from a pro bike rather than a shop floor model. No aero bottles that are so often specced to bolster wind tunnel results, and no great lurches to either super light or super aero. We don't have official weights to work with, but with the additional carbon it is entirely possible that it'll be slightly heavier than the old version, though it's probably also still likely to be possible to make under the UCI weight limit in smaller sizes, something all riders will now be hyper-aware of in the wake of Lorena Wiebes’ shock disqualification recently.

Once the race starts, it will be easier to get some better pictures that didn't involve hiding in a bush – the mechanics really didn't want us to see this – so stay tuned for more images in due course.

It's said that dogs are a man's (or woman's) best friend, and gravel racer and ex-WorldTour pro Alexey Vermeulen certainly seems to have a special bond with his dog Sir Willie.

Vermeulen often rides with Sir Willie (whose Instagram page you can see below) housed safely in a backpack. The American rider finished 5th at Unbound in 2022 and came home in 15th place in this year's Elite 200 race with an average speed of just under 21mph - that was without carrying Sir Willie around the course.

Vermeulen arrived at Unbound Gravel with Sir Willie in tow as well as a special custom-painted Enve Mog gravel bike, which garnered a lot of attention. It also features a very trick custom chainring.

Unlike many of his competitors, who kept their final race-day setups a secret, Vermeulen chose to display his bike at the expo, allowing everyone to check out his new custom paint job from ENVE featuring arguably the most famous dog in cycling. We grabbed some photos before the Unbound mud covered everything.

Cycling tech can get serious sometimes; this is a nice moment to enjoy a cool bike and a celebration of a man's love for his dog.

Check out our Unbound Tech gallery for all the best tech from the weekend's racing.

Wilier Triestina released a new Rave SLR gravel bike with a renewed focus on the ever-growing gravel race scene. The first-gen Rave SLR was released back in 2021 and pitched as an on and off-road crossover, when the concept of a dedicated gravel race bike was still forward-thinking.

The original Rave SLR’s success off-road was cemented by Ivor Silk riding to victory at both the Traka 200 and Unbound the following year, but its dual-purpose aims meant the bike had its compromises.

I felt the overall application fell short when I reviewed the original Rave SLR. While I enjoyed the spritely and reactive ride, which undoubtedly contributed to the bike's racing success, it lacked the aero-optimisation and wide tyre clearance that was beginning to creep into the gravel race scene. Ultimately, Wilier’s attempt to juggle both gravel and road duties fell short, leaving the bike feeling confused and compromised, particularly when it came to gravel riding.

These days, any self-discerning gravel bike brand has to have a dedicated gravel race bike in its catalogue, and Wilier has given the second-generation Rave SLR ID2 a clear gravel racing objective. The downtube is denoted with three pixel-style emblems, an arrow, a blank space character and a smiling emoji – symbolising Wilier’s goals for the second-generation Rave. These represent aerodynamic speed, space for bigger tyre clearance and the smiley because gravel riding is meant to be fun, the spirit of gravel and all that.

To compete with the best gravel bikes, the new Rave SLR was designed in collaboration with Wilier’s gravel racers and is laser-focused on off-road races like Unbound, where we first spotted a mystery stealthed-out, aggressive-looking Wilier.

Design and aesthetics

The new Rave SLR ID2 tubing shares very few similarities with the previous Rave SLR. Most notably, besides the very green paint, is the new aero profile. Developed using CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)

The resulting tube shaping is claimed to reduce air resistance by 8.9 per cent. For a rider of Slik’s calibre, that equates to a 54-second saving over a 70km course based on Wilier’s own findings.

A couple of key elements have been used to achieve this. The NACA profile downtube transitions from a thinner teardrop into a wider profile to shroud the leading water bottle and smooth out airflow. The fork shares design cues from the Supersonica SLR TT bike, and dropped seatstays and a scooped-out seat tube should limit the disruption of airflow as it passes over the rear of the bike.

To further boost aerodynamics, Wilier recently launched an aero kit which consists of an aerodynamic bottle cage system. The 550ml bottles and cages combined give a smooth profile with the downtube and seat tube to reduce turbulence. The bottle and cage cost €99, so you probably don't want to be throwing these bottles away, but if you need to grab a fresh bottle mid-race, a regular-shaped bottle will also fit in the cage.

One of the selling points of the previous generation Wilier Rave SLR was its impressively low weight. The Campagnolo Ekar build I tested in 2021 was lightning-quick on climbs and reactive sprints. Despite its larger aero tubing, the new Rave SLR only adds 120g to the frame weight but will be considerably more capable at holding speed on fast flat sections. On top of that, Wilier has added additional carbon reinforcement to the chainstay to increase stiffness by a claimed 11.78 per cent.

Increasing stiffness didn’t just involve slapping some extra carbon to the stays and calling it a day either. The Wilier SLR ID2 features a size-tuned layup to maintain the same ride quality for riders across all frame sizes.

As we provided in our lab test, wider tyres are faster, so it's great to see tyre clearance has grown to 52mm, roughly 2in if you speak MTB. While that isn’t the biggest we have seen for a gravel race bike, it's certainly up there.

There's one thing I disliked about the old Rave SLR that has been carried over to the new model. The seat clamp is still unnecessarily recessed into the top tube, making it trickier to insert the seatpost than it should be. It’s far from a deal breaker, as it's not something you will be dealing with regularly.

The bike features a Press Fit bottom bracket shell and is equipped with SRAM’s UDH (Universal Derailleur Hanger). Although my bike was fitted with an electronic groupset, there is cable routing that exits through the underside of the chainstay if you prefer mechanical shifting.

Despite the proliferation of 12sp and 13sp drivetrains these days, double chainsets are still holding on as the preference of some gravel riders, so it’s worth noting that this frame is 1x only; there are no fixtures or cable routing for a front derailleur.

As it's a race bike, you’re not going to find much in the way of bikepacking fixings. There are the standard bottle cage mounts, plus eyelets for a top tube bag and under the downtube for an additional bottle or storage, but that's it.

I would like to see some internal frame storage; it's becoming increasingly common on gravel bikes, but it's a feature that is generally excluded from race bikes. Sure, it would require a little more design work and add a few grams to the frame weight, but I think the convenience of the extra secure storage is worth it, especially when you consider the potential aero penalties of taping ride essentials to your carefully crafted aero frame.

Although the new Rave SLR ID2 is visually very different with its new gravel aero profiles, Wilier hasn’t changed all that much in regards to the geometry. Most notable is an extra 10mm to the stack height, which the new aggressively shaped F-bar offsets; more on the handlebar later.

Beyond the stack height, only minor tweaks have been made to the headtube angle, chainstay and reach compared to the previous generation. This gives a far more traditional fit when compared to the longer top tube and shorter stem trend that we have seen on bikes like the Canyon Grail and Lauf Seigla.

On an aesthetic front, I felt the old bike lacked presence, but the same certainly can’t be said of the new aggressive aero profile. While Slik’s Unbound bike came in a subtle raw carbon finish, our test bike is certainly not going to fly under the radar in its eye-catching 90’s electronica paint scheme. My test bike came in the Pixel Green colourway, which incorporates fluorescent pixels of CRT screens and the laser beams of rave parties. There’s also a Neon Purple inspired by futuristic cities and underground clubs, Byte Cream that nods to the retro computers and consoles aesthetic and finally the understated Glitch Black.

Specifications

I tested the top-tier spec, which means I was treated to a full SRAM RED XPLR AXS groupset. That means the derailleur uses SRAM’s T-Type direct-mount to shift across a 10-46T 13-speed cassette. The bike comes with a 40t chainring. This is fine for general riding, but if you are serious about gravel racing, you’re probably going to want to get something with a few more teeth. It's a bit disappointing that spending almost €10,000 doesn’t get you a power meter, especially on a bike that's aimed at racing.

Miche isn’t a brand that's commonly featured on an off-the-shelf bike; Wilier has opted to keep it Italian and specced the Graff Aero 48. It’s a deep-section hookless gravel wheel aimed at gravel racing, with a 27mm internal rim diameter that's broad enough to comfortably support wider gravel tyres. They performed well during testing, although they aren’t the lightest, so there are a few hundred grams to be saved if you need it. These are fitted with Vittoria T50 tyres, but in my opinion, a set of faster-rolling T30S would have been better suited to the Rave SLR ID2’s nature.

Wilier specs its own F-Bar integrated handlebar on models at higher price points, and my bike came equipped with a suitably racey handlebar width of 37cm on the tops, flaring out to 40mm in the drops. All the flare occurs in the curve of the bar, giving the 126mm drops a comfortable inline hand position. The UCI’s handlebar width rules only apply to mass start road and cyclocross events, so these one-piece aero handlebars are still race legal in gravel and, with the hoods turned in, they promote an aggressive aero position. Cable routing is internally routed through the handlebars and continues unseen into the frame. The handlebar is available separately for an eye-watering $1000 price tag if you want to fit it to your current bike.

The full build comes in at a hair under 8kg for my size medium, which is very respectable, especially considering it's got aero tubing and it’s fitted with 48mm deep rims and 50mm tyres. For comparison, the benchmark of lightweight gravel bikes is the round-tubed and shallow rimmed Specialized S-Works Crux at 7.25kg. It's among the lightest of aero gravel bikes, coming in at not much more than 100g heavier than the Ridley ASTR RS and 300g heavier than the Cervelo Aspero-5.

Performance

The Wilier Rave SLR ID2 only has one purpose: it's a race bike, and it encourages you to ride fast. Climb aboard, and it feels as though you have a rocket between your legs. It's sharp and reactive, urging you to kick it up a gear and attack. Its unapoligetic about its singular focus and all the better for it.

As critical as I was about the old Rave, the one thing that really enamoured me about it was the instant reactivity and eagerness for acceleration. The aero upgrade, deep-section wheels and fat tyres could have easily numbed this experience; thankfully, the Rave SLR ID2 still has this explosive thrust forward when power is sent through the pedals.

Handling is extremely precise, with the short chainstay and wheelbase giving the Rave SLR ID2 a lively yet planted feel through the corners. In fact, I would go as far as saying that this is one of the best-handling bikes I have ever tested. Drill the bike through corner combinations, and it's easy to open up gaps that the wheels behind you will need to close.

What's interesting is that the Rave SLR ID2’s singular focus actually makes it a much better bike for spanning across gravel and sealed surfaces. Low weight ensures you are up to speed quickly, and the aero positioning and frame design hold speed well on flat sections.

Ride feel only tells you so much, but our own independent aero testing backs up what I felt when riding. We wind tunnel tested the Wilier Rave SLR ID2 against the top gravel race bikes, including two spicy unreleased gravel bikes from Argon18 aero gravel bike and Specialized Crux, and the Rave SLR ID2 consistently scored among the fastest bikes. If you want to delve into the numbers, check out the full results in our gravel race bike wind tunnel test.

While our rolling resistance testing has proven wider tyres are faster, and they certainly enhance cornering performance, it's worth noting that the wider tyres don’t necessarily equate to more capability. The bike is taught and even though it comes stock with 50mm Vittoria T50 tyres, there is still a lot of trail feedback translated through the bike. This was particularly noticeable when speeds picked up on rougher tracks, with a lot of vibrations communicated through the bike despite my experimentation with low pressures.

The cause could be attributed to a number of factors, so to try to isolate some of the nervousness when descending on raw surfaces, I switched the tyres to a set of Continental Terra Speed gravel tyres in a smaller 45mm size. Although the differences weren’t dramatic, the combination of a more forgiving sidewall and slightly more rounded profile made a difference to handling and I was able to corner with even more confidence. Ride quality also improved, and although the Terra Speeds I fitted were smaller, they dulled vibrations more effectively.

Changing the tyres didn’t transform it into a magic carpet ride, and the frame stiffness combined with the aggressive aero positioning makes descending on proper technical terrain an experience that demands some attention and care. Let speeds pick up on loose and chunky surfaces, and the bike will begin to feel a bit squirrely. I think it's forgivable; it's a race bike rather than a pseudo mountain bike, and if you are racing, the aero performance should outweigh the additional care needed.

Value

Wilier offers the Rave SLR ID2 in 10 different builds plus a frameset option. Pricing starts at $5,200 / £4,150 / €4,400 for the mechanical GRX 12sp bike up to the SRAM RED-equipped range-topping bike I have been testing, which costs $11,700 / £8,900 / €9,900. In between there are also GRX Di2, SRAM Rival and SRAM Force equipped bikes with either Miche Graff XL, Graff All-Road or Aero Graff Carbon 48mm wheelsets.

Is the Wilier Rave SLR ID2 good value? To put it bluntly, not really. Based on component MSRP’s, you will save money buying a complete bike, but it's a tight margin. The frameset costs around £3000 (add £800 if you want to F-Bar too) and with some shrewd deal shopping and a bit of luck, it could be possible to build up a SRAM RED/Miche Aero Graff 48 equipped Rave SLR ID2 bike cheaper than it comes from Wilier. Admittedly, you would have to factor in additional postage costs and deal with assembling the bike too. In the end, the discounts would need to be good to make the juice worth the squeeze, but let this be a reminder that it shouldn’t be assumed that an off-the-shelf bike build will be cheaper these days.

It’s worth noting that Wilier offers significantly better value than many of its gravel race bike competitors. Want to spend under five figures on a top-tier gravel race bike? You will be looking at a SRAM Force-equipped 3T Exploro RaceMax, Allied Able or Cervelo Aspero-5.

Pinarello’s latest Dogma GR can't be had for less than €14,000 complete, although it does come with a particularly flash set of Princeton Grit 4540 Evolution wheels. The Rave SLR ID2 undercuts some of the big players too, Specialized’s S-Works Crux and Cannondale’s SuperX Lab71, both with Red XPLR, are well North of the €10k mark.

There are better value bikes around. The SRAM RED equipped Lauf Siegla Ultimate that my colleague Tom tested saves a huge chunk of cash, and although it doesn't have a fancy integrated carbon handlebar, it does have a suspension fork and power meter. Trek’s Checkmate SLR 9 and Orbea Terra Race M11eLTD just scrape under the five-figure mark and both include a SRAM RED groupset, with a power meter as standard too.

Verdict

The Rave SLR ID2 hooked me on my first outing and the more I rode it, the more I loved it. It's undeniably fast, both in feel and in our independent aero testing, and the handling prowess is frankly outrageous. If you have confidence in the surface, few bikes will be able to hold the wheel of the Rave SLR ID2 through fast twisting trails. It's addictive, willing you to accelerate harder, go faster and brake later with each corner.

If you're looking for a bike that will absolutely rip the high-octane gravel racing that is seen on distances up to 200km, the Rave SLR ID2 is the tool for the job. It will cover the longer Ultra distance too, especially if you choose a supple tyre to improve comfort, but it's definitely better suited to the smoother, faster and more aggressive nature of short distance races.

To get the most out of the Rave SLR ID2 I would recommend switching out the tyres. Pairing the bike with a set of the best gravel tyres for your local conditions will greatly improve control and confidence on descents.

Over the weekend in Emporia, Kansas, riders on the new Crux 5 from Specialized claimed the top three spots in the elite men's 200-mile race and the top two in the elite women's 200-mile race.

It marks an opening weekend of blockbuster proportions for a bike that launched to the public less than 48 hours before the race got underway.

Among the many steps along the way to this result was testing in the Flint Hills both in and out of competition.

Matt Beers, winner of four Cape Epics and now second at this year's Unbound was involved in both efforts. Early on in the process, Beers and 2021 Unbound winner Ian Boswell were recruited for some tests that pitted the previous Crux against one of Specialized's other gravel bikes, the Diverge STR, which features a small suspension device at the rear.

"We came out [to Emporia] in 2024," Beers told Cyclingnews. "We came out here and we tested the Crux versus the STR which has the rear compliance in the seatpost. And we tested that with a bunch of sensors on each bike doing recon. Ian Boswell and myself.”

This testing was followed up a year later with a sensor-equipped Diverge race bike that Beers rode in the 2025 edition of Unbound, where he gathered data about where and how the rough terrain of the Flint Hills was translating into fatigue for riders.

As the Crux evolved from a pure cyclo-cross machine to a gravel racer, it was crucial to know where comfort could be gained without sacrificing stiffness and power transfer.

“We had a little black box on the saddle that took data from the race. I raced with that. The more vibrations that go through you, the more fatigue, so trying to figure that out and trying to eliminate that."

According to the brand, this is part of its 'Equation of Speed', which essentially aims to replicate Formula 1's lap times technology and measure everything between the power in at the pedals and how that translates to speed. This involves the well-known metrics like aerodynamics, rolling resistance and gravity, but also factors in frame responsiveness, tyre traction, course profile, course surface roughness, weather, rider fatigue, rider habits and so on. These are all measured, quantified, and input into an algorithm - built in-house at Specialized by former F1 engineer Marcel Keyser - which then runs simulations and calculates finish times. By iterating on bike design - adding extra stiffness here or more compliance there - the algorithm can calculate how that affects a rider's speed.

"Obviously, we've had the Crux, we've had the Diverge, the Diverge STR, and we've collected data through all those bikes. That had an effect on development on this bike, trying to make one that can kind of tick all those boxes and be super fast, and I think that was the main goal of this bike, was just to kind of make it as compliant, but very fast and super stiff all in the right places.”

As a taller rider, Beers, and his teammate Geerike Schreurs have found the new Crux design to be especially adapted to their needs.

"I think the head tube is always quite important. Mine is very long, and you can feel quite a lot of flex through it sometimes. But also just the overall fit of the bike. I think Gee will also know, the bike fits really well for a tall person.”

This is down to Specialized's Rider First Engineering principle, which promises the same ride quality for every rider, regardless of their frame size.

Schreurs agreed. “It fits perfectly for tall people. It's kind of built for me, I think."

The biggest weekend in the gravel racing calendar has now come to a close, and the storylines are still slowly filtering out. The 2026 Unbound Gravel had everything, from extreme mud, brutal crashes, and shows of impressive selflessness.

But as ever, it also brought dozens of new tech finds too. It would have been hard work for this year to top 2025's total of nine 'spotted' bikes, but brands certainly tried their best. Factor, Canyon and Giant all brought the heat, each with respective new machines.

Meanwhile, Specialized launched its all-new Crux and dominated the action, claiming a 1, 2, 3, 5 in the men's Elite 200, and a 1, 2 in the women's Elite 200.

Scott's prototype could be the biggest story of the weekend though. With 32in wheels, it's the first competitive outing for the new, bigger wheel size, and it took the win in the 350-mile Men's XL race, albeit Robin Gemperle has been in such impressive form of late that he probably would have won that on a Brompton.

In this gallery, we've predominantly got the bikes from the Elite finish line, plus a bit from the Expo and the XL to round it off. We kick off with the Men's Elite 200 winner.

For the 2026 edition of Unbound, several of Factor Bikes' athletes will be racing and testing a head-turning prototype bike.

It doesn't yet have a name and it is still in the development process, but Factor's engineers tell me that after Unbound concludes and the feedback is analysed, it will be one crucial step closer to fruition.

We had a sneak peek at this prototype in Emporia before the racing got underway.

The bike, as it exists currently, reflects features that top gravel athletes are demanding in their quest for more speed. The rear end and saddle are pulled forward, and there is ample tyre clearance to say the least.

The most eye-catching aspect of the bike is the fork and head tube. I'm told more traditional designs were tested, but the current shapes have proven to be the most aerodynamic on the part of the bike where their effects are most felt.

Unbound Gravel is just around the corner, with the racing kicking off tomorrow. Rain is threatening, and there are already videos surfacing online of riders' bikes covered with the infamous Unbound mud.

The latest fresh gravel tech of the year has appeared today in the shape of a prototype Giant gravel bike, which has been teased on the brand's Instagram page.

This new tech follows on from Scott's 32" prototype RC gravel bike, which will be ridden in the 200 event by Cameron Jones and Robin Gemperle.

The brand teased a collection of images and mentioned 'prototypes we've been working on' in its post, and Cyclingnews went to the expo to get a closer look.

For gravel race bikes, the direction of travel currently is faster and more aerodynamic, with a focus on boosted tyre clearance to lower rolling resistance. It doesn't look like Giant has gone crazy here, but the machines shown certainly look more racy, and a little more purposeful.

The tease - what are we looking at?

Giant currently offers a single gravel-specific model, which is the Revolt; it sits adjacent to the TCX cyclocross bike in the brand's off-road drop-bar range.

Similarities in the bikes' frames and online speculation point to this being an updated version of the Revolt.

A handy comparison can be found by looking at Brendan Johnston's Instagram post below from last month. Johnston rode an existing Revolt frame, and it makes for an easy way to look at potential changes, based on the assumption that this mystery machine is some kind of new Revolt model.

The changes to the frame itself look relatively small, though when official news does come from Giant, it may be the case that a lot of tube shapes themselves are different.

The head tube of the bike looks slightly deeper and shorter; this is where comparing the same riders' bikes is handy.

The top tube and seat tube junction is clearly different, with a more standard shape being used; a different scalloped seatpost has been fitted, likely to boost comfort.

At the back end, it also seems the frame has received a UDH compatibility update, a must-have these days for any up-to-date gravel machine.

Giant's adjustable 'flip chip', which gives riders the ability to lengthen the bike's wheelbase (and increase tyre clearance), also appears to have been removed. This is something of a rare feature amongst gravel machines.

Tyre clearance for the current Revolt is 53mm in the long flip chip setting and 45mm in the short. It's probably fair to assume the new machine can handle at least a 50mm tyre.

That's the bike's frame, but Giant threw us another bone when it mentioned 'prototypes', which tells us there is more that's new.

The mystery bike's wheels and handlebar could be new components as well. It's difficult to be sure, but the wheels fitted to the bike could be a new gravel-specific model.

While they look similar to the Cadex Ultra wheels and share similar-looking bladed carbon spokes and a 16-spoke front wheel spoke count, Cadex officially only has a single, less racy-looking AR 35 wheelset that is gravel-specific.

A closer look at the bikes

After seeing the posts, we headed for a look at prototype Giant and Liv gravel race bikes ahead of the racing starting.

Riders who will be on the prototype frames include Brendan Johnston, Cole Paton, and Matteo Fontana on the men's side and Peta Mullens, Tessa Neefjes and Melisa Rollins on the women's.

Staff from either brand would not answer any specific questions about them. But we took shots of the bikes below which provide a good insight into what they are about - speed.

Ten years ago, gravel bikes didn't know what they were. Some were bikepacking bikes, others mountain bikes with drop bars, others cyclo-cross bikes with new titles, and others were just a blended mix of everything.

But as races have grown in prominence and prize money has increased, competitors have become more… well, competitive. Flannel shirts and post-ride beers have been replaced by ice vests and high-carb recovery drinks. Talk of handlebar moustaches has been replaced by talk of handlebar width. And tyre width is everyone's favourite subject, from the amateur ranks right through to the pros.

As all that has changed, bike brands have scrambled to keep up, with riders wanting bigger tyre clearance, aero frames, narrow handlebars and more. And as a result, a new category of gravel race bike has formed.

I've long been curious which of these new bikes is most aero, and I strongly suspect our readers are too, but there's a big caveat that's stopped us testing it 'til now: tyre clearance.

The term 'faster' doesn't solely come down to a bike's aero drag, and that's especially true on the rougher surfaces of gravel. A bike could have 40mm tyre clearance, be incredibly aerodynamic, but really slow on balance once you've factored in the rolling resistance against a bike with 57mm clearance.

We've long understood that wider tyres offer lower rolling resistance, but it wasn't until earlier this year, when we published a test that measured the combined differences of rolling and aero drag across different widths, that we could put some numbers against it.

We've got more tests planned in that field to refine our data and improve its accuracy. But for now, we're in a position to confidently measure the aero drag of gravel bikes with that context in mind. So that's what we did.

Just as with our road bike wind tunnel tests, we've taken a cohort of gravel race bikes to the wind tunnel at Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub to put them to the test.

The bikes

• Lauf Seigla
• Argon 18 Anti Matter
• Specialized Crux 5 (the new one)
• Trek Checkmate SLR
• Wilier Rave SLR ID2
• Basso Palta 3
• Reap Type 300
• Pinarello Dogma GR
• 3T Racemax Italia²
• And our trusty Trek Emonda ALR, for benchmarking and comparison purposes

With that Emonda ALR, we built a protocol that gives us an element of comparability to our road tests, just for a second layer of info, but the primary aim here was to understand how many watts of aero drag separate the various gravel race bikes you'll find on the market today. Coupled with the reduction in rolling resistance drag that wider tyres can provide, we should then be able to assign a ranking to each bike.

This category is ever-growing, especially in 2026. Ridley, Factor and Canyon each teased new machines at the recent Traka Gravel that all look to mix deep aero tubes and big chunky tyres. Sources tell me we'll see more at Unbound, too.

We tried to get each of the aforementioned unreleased bikes, as well as the Cervelo Aspero 5, BMC Kaius and Cannondale SuperX. For context, as I feel this is important, Ridley and BMC simply couldn't get us a bike in time, despite wanting to. Cervèlo and Cannondale promised bikes, but they never materialised, likely due to logistical stresses since Cannondale's UK distribution has returned in-house. Canyon simply said it was "the wrong time," given the new bike's imminence. Factor, citing the complexities of gravel bike aero testing, refused to partake. I spoke at length with them, and while I dislike it, I respect their decision.

Speaking of complexities…

Protocol and standardisations

We tested at 35km/h. This is faster than most of our readers will be averaging when riding gravel, but there are a couple of reasons for this.

First, the slower the wind speed, the less force is being exerted on the force balance in the wind tunnel, which ultimately is what measures the drag. With lower resolution and testing with a real rider, the impact of slight movements would have an outsized effect on the result. We could have tested for longer on each capture to offset this, but that would have meant needing to hold the correct position for longer, which means potentially more movements. Therefore, testing at as high a speed as is relevant made the most sense.

Second, most of these bikes are designed for elite racing, and the pinnacle of that sport is Unbound Gravel, where the average speed in 2025 was 37.8km/h for the men, and 32.4km/h for the women. 35 is nicely central to this, and having consulted multiple aerodynamicists, I'm assured that extrapolating from tests at 35km/h down to 30km/h or up to 40km/h won't unfairly affect the results compared to testing at those speeds.

Third, even in age group racing, the decisive move in a gravel race when aerodynamics matters (ie, you're not drafting) is rarely below the average speed of a race. It's an attack, a lone breakaway, a bridge to the next group, etc. My own average speed at the 2025 Gralloch (a mediocre 26th place) was a smidge over 30km/h, but the race-deciding moment where I crashed and chased back on, was 36.7km/h (according to my Strava).

We tested at seven yaw angles, from -15° to +15° in 5° increments. At slower speeds, wider yaw angles are experienced more often, but at typical gravel race speeds, the bell curve is still a steep one that centres around 0° (direct headwind). The frequency at which you experience greater than +/- 15° is small enough to discount.

We tested each bike in three ways:

• With a rider – me – with its stock wheels and 45mm Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH tyres.
• As a bike on its own, with its stock wheels and 45mm Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH tyres.
• As a bike on its own, but with the Enve G SES 6.7 wheels and 50mm Vittoria Terreno T30 (previously Terreno Dry) tyres.

Each bike was a 56cm or the model's closest equivalent.

Positions were matched as closely as possible across bikes, with reach and stack matched to ensure my torso angle was consistent. We were unable to change the handlebar widths, but by rolling my wrists in or out, I was able to match the position of my arms well from bike to bike.

Each bike was fitted with 45mm Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH tyres front and rear, inflated to 30psi to avoid any avoidable difference in tyre shape/size.

All bikes were fitted with SRAM Red XPLR or Force XPLR groupsets, except the Basso Palta III, which came with Shimano GRX wireless (2x) and the 3T Racemax 2 Italia, which had wired GRX (2x). All had 170mm cranks. We didn't control tube valve length, but instead used what came with the bike, as they best reflected the length of valve a rider would typically use on that bike.

Each bike had an Ergon SR AllRoad women's saddle, because it features the same shape and design across both alloy- and carbon-rail versions. This made it much easier to set the positions identically, and meant there was no unfair disadvantage to bikes with a 3D-printed saddle in the bike-only tests.

Where a bike comes with its own aero bottle cages and/or bottles, we used them, as we believe owners of said bikes will use them too. For everything else, we used Elite Fly bottles and Vico cages.

We removed computer mounts from all bikes and taped over the holes where necessary.

In the rider-on-bike tests, my cadence was held at an average of 90 RPM to ensure 45 full rotations per capture (and not start/finish midway through a complete revolution). And the gear was matched to ensure the wheels spun at the same speed.

I wore the same kit, helmet, shoes, overshoes and glasses throughout the day, and marked their position on my legs and arms to ensure they didn't creep out of position as the day went on.

In the bike-only tests, a powered roller spun the wheels at 35km/h. The cranks were locked in a horizontal position.

Confidence margin

By testing an identical setup at the start of the day, immediately thereafter, and then again at the end of the day, we are able to quantify the margin of error we can expect to creep into the result of other bikes. This comes from things like my position on the bike, how I grip the handlebars, the orientation of bottles in the cages, small differences in how it sits in the mounting stanchions, and so on.

This is similar to what we've seen in our road tests.

Positively, the raw data from the tunnel for the Emonda ALR is similar to what we've seen in previous tests too, although not close enough that we can avoid testing it altogether.

Additional disclaimers and caveats

As ever, Cyclingnews does not claim that this data is the final word on the aerodynamic performance of the bikes featured, but rather an additional stream of independent, unbiased testing and information for our readers. The data is simply a result of our own tests, under our set protocol.

We hope that by being clear about our testing procedure, our readers (and maybe even the brands themselves) can understand the data and appreciate the results without losing sight of the bigger picture.

This is especially true of the combined result that factors in the effect of tyre clearance. We have based this on the manufacturer's stated tyre clearance, not the absolute maximum tyre size that each frame could fit. And we have not tested for frame compliance, which could offset, or even further, some of the differences.

Our rolling resistance tests covered three surfaces, but only you know the severity of 'gravel' you typically encounter. The benefit of bigger tyres grows roughly in line with the roughness of the terrain. If your idea of gravel is actually just a dusty road, upgrading from 45mm to 57mm tyres will be less important than if you rode chunky rock gardens.

There are dozens of other factors you should consider, too. A bike's weight, how it rides, the stiffness, comfort, component specification, after-sales care, and even just how it looks are all metrics to weigh against one another. Only you know how important each one is to you.

It's well documented that when cycling, you experience low yaw angles more often than high yaw angles (more headwind than crosswind), so our results have been weighted in accordance with Nathan Barry's 2018 paper, A New Method for Analysing the Effect of Environmental Wind on Real World Aerodynamic Performance in Cycling. This ensures the data and our conclusions are more real-world applicable. Interestingly, a few brands have challenged this notion as being too heavily in favour of wider yaw angles. I plan to do a deeper dive into this in the coming months, but for now, we've stuck with what we know.

Also, I've run the maths to weight more heavily to 0° yaw (as if for a 52km/h rider speed), the order of bikes remains almost entirely unchanged, and any adjustments in average CdA remain within our error margin of the next bike, so I'm confident that our results aren't any less valid as a result of our chosen protocol.

Sponsor declaration

Before we get into the fun stuff, a brief interlude to say that this story includes paid product placement from Enve, hence the use of the G SES wheels as our control.

I personally approved Enve's inclusion in this test, as I do with all paid placement inclusions, having concluded it would offer no unfair bias – nor the appearance of bias – to the test.

We wanted a control wheel for the test that represented the progressive, wider, more aero direction that the gravel racing space is trending toward, and the new wheels with a 35mm internal seemed like the perfect match.

Beyond that, the test wasn't in any way sponsored. We run these tests entirely independently. Each brand loans us the bike specifically for the test (sometimes doubling up for a subsequent real-ride review), and the bikes will all be returned in due course. By the time you read this, most of them will already have been sent back.

We pay to hire the wind tunnel at the same commercial rate as any other customer. As a result, these tests cannot happen without our subscribers, so a fair and impartial protocol is essential to their success and our ability to continue doing them. If you, as a reader, don't trust our authenticity and impartiality, this whole franchise becomes a bit pointless.

The results

I'll present the results in a few different ways.

First, I'll show the raw CdA figures as they come out of the tunnel software, shown in graph format across each yaw point.

Next, having calculated the weighted average, I will calculate the difference against the baseline bike in watts. These calculations will only account for aerodynamic drag, not drivetrain friction, rolling resistance, gravity, and so on. We're interested in the differences here, rather than the absolutes.

For clarity, I will use this equation. Power (watts) = 0.5 x AirDensity x CdA x Velocity^3

Rather than then combining the aero data with our previous test on the effect of tyre width, I will simply add in an interlude now to show those results.

The reason for this is that they were complicated. The aero penalty is linear with width, as you'd expect, since a bigger tyre should create more drag. But surprisingly, we also found that the rolling resistance increased (ie, more drag) with width until you hit mountain bike sizes (57mm and 61mm), where they rapidly fell.

By our data, there's a clear advantage to any bike that can accept tyres as wide as 57mm, and slightly more again for those that can accept 61mm. But a bike with 53mm clearance isn't less good than one that can only accept 45mm tyres, because you can still run 45mm tyres in it.

I will reference the tyre clearance of each bike as results are published.

Bike only, stock wheelset

The graph above shows the CdA as it comes out of the wind tunnel software at each of the seven yaw angle plots. It's entirely normal for the CdA to increase at higher wind angles. Some bikes are able to use the sail effect to reduce drag when the wind comes from an angle, but chunky gravel bikes clearly aren't doing that.

Hover over (or click on) bikes in the key to highlight each one in turn.

The graph above is the result of the aforeshown CdA, weightings applied to reflect the real-world likelihood of experiencing each, and then using that average, I've solved for watts. It shows that the Argon 18 Anti Matter is fastest by 1.21w (+/- 0.26w error). The Crux 5 is next, despite being by far the lightest bike on test.

The Lauf Seigla, a Force-equipped bike with shallow wheels a round handlebar, separate stem and externally routed cables brings up the rear. I'm pretty surprised by the Basso Palta, which despite looking like a very premium machine, is both aerodynamically poor and heavy, at almost 8.5kg.

This is a slightly clearer graphic of the differences between each bike. Interestingly, our baseline Emonda ALR road bike is among the cohort, showing us that despite the obvious defecit of fat tyres, modern gravel bikes are able to hold their own against bikes - albeit basic ones - from a decade ago.

Bike with rider, stock wheelset

Above, we've plotted the same seven yaw angles, but this time for the bike with a rider - me - on top.

The first thing you'll call out is that the Emonda ALR is fastest. Don't read into that too much; being a road bike, the position was impossible to match against those of the various gravel bikes, so rather than get halfway there and still have rubbish comparability, we kept it as per our road tests. I stand by the notion that riders will generally be in a different position - shorter reach, taller stack - on a gravel bike anyway.

Emonda aside, a similar selection of bikes occupy the fastest spots, with the exception of the 3T, which had a very wide handlebar and a stem that couldn't be lowered without cutting the steerer, which we weren't permitted to do. Therefore, its position was a little higher and wider than the rest, and that has likely affected it here.

When we solve for watts, the Crux 5 sneaks into the top spot ahead of the Wilier Rave. The error margin means that the Argon 18, the Pinarello Dogma GR and the Reap Type 300 can all claim top spot, while the Trek Checkmate, 3T and Basso are in the relegation scrap (Premier League Football rules), and the Lauf Seigla is a distant last place.

Above, I've zoomed in a little to look at the deltas against the Emonda. As mentioned, the Emonda is fastest, but the differences between fastest and slowest gravel bike is a notable 14.45 watts. Even if you ignore the four-year-old Lauf and compare against the Basso Palta III which launched this year, there are 8.99 watts separating the fastest and slowest.

Bike only, standardised wheels

Next, it's time for the standardised wheel test, where we removed the brand's supplied wheels and swapped in a set of Enve G SES 6.7 wheels, shod with a pair of 50mm Vittoria Terreno T30 tyres.

Our aim here was to show each bike in a more consistent and more modern setup, but not so wide as to alienate half the bikes on test.

Although we did have to bench the Pinarello, since the rear wheel wouldn't fit. The Trek Checkmate managed it, just, despite claiming 45mm clearance. Everything else promises space for 50mm or above.

I spoke to Enve prior to using the wheels and learned they were actually designed around a 45mm tyre, which seems narrow for a wheel with a 35mm internal width. I was assured there wasn't a big penalty bumping this up to 50mm, though, so that's what I settled on.

If we went even wider, then we'd have to cut more bikes from the test, and it felt better to have more data than run 2.2in tyres and only manage to fit them into four of the bikes.

The aero differences between bikes shouldn't be too different anyway.

We already know the aero penalty between different sizes when all else is kept equal. There's also a rolling resistance difference to bear in mind if you do.

Here, like the earlier bike-only test, the Argon 18 is ahead of the competition. The Wilier Rave has actually snuck ahead of the S-Works Crux, while the 3T and Reap aren't far behind. Trek is next, then Basso, and then the Lauf brings up the rear once more.

The bike to gain the most from the wheelset upgrade is, unsurprisingly, the Lauf, which gained 8.38 watts. It was tested with a pair of shallow E*Thirteen wheels that offer very little aero promise.

The bike to benefit least from the upgrade is Specialized, gaining 2.37 watts. The Crux's Roval Terra Aero wheels feature a clever chopped aero shape that is said to mimic the aero property of wheels with 70mm deep rims.

Conclusions and takeaways

I think the biggest takeaway is that there are aerodynamic savings to be found in gravel bikes, but that's only half the picture. You can get similar gains by simply switching to a bike with bigger clearances.

Of course, as more and more brands catch up with consumers' needs, you can now have both. A true cake-and-eat-it scenario.

The Argon 18, one of the most aero bikes here, also promises the biggest clearance at 57mm. The Crux isn't far behind at 55mm, while also being a full kilogram lighter.

The Trek Checkmate misses the target almost entirely, in my opinion. Sure, it can sneak a 50mm, but you wouldn't want to if you had to pay for the carbon repair afterwards. Hopefully, the Isospeed is picking up some of the slack there, but even then, the aero result was a disappointment.

The 3T is an interesting beast that would have fared better with more adjustability.

The Reap is the only bike here with a road Q-factor, which is impressive given it can still clear a 53mm tyre with ease. It didn't quite trouble the top spots, but it definitely looked best, and that's got to count for something.

The Lauf was perhaps unfairly treated in this test, as it was the only bike (Emonda aside) with external cables and a round handlebar. We tested it with a rigid fork, as that's what we had access to, but its party trick is that leafspring fork that would likely add even more rolling resistance gains when paired with its 57mm tyre clearance. I think if you own the Seigla and care about the aero performance, you'll give it a bit more prep work, such as a nice aero handlebar and route the cables more tidily. It's also a much easier bike to own than the rest here, so that will likely sway a lot of riders.

I denounced the Dogma GR's tyre clearance as outdated before it even launched, but with the Grevil's 50mm clearance alongside it in the range, it's actually a really smart bike for a lot of Pinarello customers. If you want the genuinely exceptional ride quality of the Dogma F road bike, with a little more capability, but don't plan on venturing beyond the Tuscan Strade Bianche in the sun (which is totally understandable, I will add), it's the perfect bike. It's not a gravel race bike designed for Unbound or the Traka, but it's the only gravel bike with less than 50mm tyre clearance I'd consider owning. I've not ridden the Cervélo Áspero 5, though, which probably lands in a similar place.

The biggest surprise to me was the Basso Palta III. Launched just this year, with 52mm clearance up front and 50mm at the rear, it's a really pretty bike, it looks seriously premium, and although the bar-stem is a two-piece aluminium affair, the aero Miche Graff Aero wheels and GRX wireless groupset suggest big things. Despite that, it was close to a kilo heavier than most of the other bikes here, almost two kilos chunkier than the Crux, and lagging behind in the aero stakes too. I'm sure a one-piece cockpit would have helped it in both cases, but I couldn't help but wonder where all the weight was coming from.

Comparing to road bikes

It's interesting to see how the gravel bikes compare to the Emonda ALR, which is the same baseline bike we use in our road bike tests.

In those road bike tests, the Emonda is 25-40 watts behind the superbikes in the bike-only setup, but here it's right amongst them (6w slower than the Argon 18, and 18w faster than the Lauf). This isn't too surprising given it has 25mm slick tyres, compared to 45mm knobbly rubber. Of course, nobody's saying the best gravel bike is actually a 2015 alloy road bike, but when you extrapolate that comparison back against the superbikes, you can infer that a gravel bike is between 19 watts (fastest gravel vs slowest road) and 58 watts (slowest gravel vs fastest road bike) slower.

When you then chuck a rider on top, the data gets muddier because the positions differ. The road bike is set up in a racy road position, and even though the gravel bikes are set up racily too, they are shorter in reach and taller in stack by default, so their positions reflect this. Specifically, it worked out 30mm longer in reach, and 30mm lower in stack.

The Emonda sits between 15 and 27 watts slower than the aero road bikes we've tested, whereas here, it's between 3 and 18 watts faster than the gravel bikes. That tells us that the deficit between gravel bikes and road bikes is - roughly - between 18 and 45 watts.

Given we've only really tested nominally 'aero' road bikes, that minimum figure of 18 watts is probably a little inflated, too. If we were to test 'non aero' frames such as the Specialized Aethos, I predict the difference will be smaller.

It also tells us that the S-Works Tarmac SL8, at 22.67 watts faster than the Emonda, and the new Specialized Crux at 3.86 watts slower, are around 26.5 watts apart from each other (when tested in these respective positions and setups). That seems like a lot, but I would be very interested to see how that gap closes if we fitted road tyres to the Crux. Likewise, if we hacked about with the cockpits to get the Crux to match the road position.

Individual bike results

The individual results listed below are done so in ascending order based on our rider-on results, as I had to pick one of the three datasets, and it's the most real-world of the bunch.

Baseline: Trek Emonda ALR

In the absence of an old, budget-friendly gravel bike to compare against, I thought it valuable to bring along our road baseline so that we have an anchor for when we come back with more gravel bikes.

The purpose of this baseline is simply to have a consistent measurement across each testing day, to normalise against good- or bad-atmospheric conditions. If the conditions are conducive to lower drag (such as lower air pressure), then all bikes will test faster than they would on a high-pressure day. If we simply took the results and compared them against a prior day's testing, we'd have an unfair test.

But by testing the Emonda on both days, and then measuring the delta of the 'subject' against that, we have consistency no matter the conditions.

By taking the road bike, we also get to see how the gravel bikes compare to our road superbikes, as I've analysed above.

Specialized Crux 5

It's a mad expensive bike, but in a money-no-object sense, it's hard to see past the Crux as the best bike here. It's not only the most aerodynamic in our test with a rider on top - albeit by just a single count ahead of the Wilier and within the error margin - it's a full kilogram lighter at 7.1kg vs 8.1kg (both with bottles in cages, no pedals, no out-front mount, and no sealant in the tyres).

It's a few watts slower than the Argon 18 in its bike-only setup though, which is significantly cheaper thanks to the Force XPLR groupset.

Wilier Rave SLR ID2

The Rave SLR ID2 is very much a race-first gravel bike. It first leaked at Unbound 2025, and it sits close behind the Crux in the rider-on test, but it can claim top spot due to the error margin.

It was 4th in the bike-only test, behind the Anti Matter, Crux and Italia 2 Racemax, but this climbed to 2nd when we swapped in the Enve wheels.

It's worth talking about its 'Aerokit' system, which comprises aero bottles and cages. As ever, if you have them, you'll probably use them, so we've tested with them. But in longer gravel events where you're leaving bottles at an aid station, you might need to switch to round bottles, which will reduce its performance a bit.

Argon 18 Anti Matter

The Argon 18 netted an impressive performance across the board here, with outright victories in both of the bike-only tests and third place in the rider-on tests, but within the error margin of victory.

These results are for the bike without the Apidura frame bag. We ran some extra tests on the bike with that frame bag fitted, and found a 0.75w saving (tested as bike only).

The Force equipped version we had here comes equipped with the Zipp 303 XPLR S wheels, not the slightly more premium 303 XPLR SW wheels. We tested with those too and found a saving of 2.45 watts.

Pinarello Dogma GR

At first, I thought the Dogma GR's 45mm tyre clearance was a miss. Most racers are looking to 50, 55 or even 60mm tyres. And indeed, it was too tight to fit the Enve wheels with 50mm tyres, so we don't have data for that test.

But as I've already outlined above, I think the bike's intentions lie elsewhere. It's pretty ideal for the 'champagne' gravel most of us will call gravel. This bike is another mad expensive one, and there's no data here that will convince you to buy it, but if you're a Pinarello superfan, this bike will give you Dogma F ride quality, with the freedom to venture off-road.

With that said, it can technically claim top spot in the rider-on tests. It landed 2.48 watts behind the Crux, so within our margin of error.

Reap Type 300

The Type 300 might be a surprise inclusion if you're not familiar with the brand, but I was keen to include it because I'm impressed that Reap has managed to maintain a road q-factor, despite offering 53mm tyre clearance.

It's a good-looking thing, with a proper horizontal top tube (which looks to slope downwards thanks to the perspective in the image above). Within its carbon is a clever biological fibre technology that is not only recycled, but also better able to absorb vibrations.

It's just outside the error margin of the win in the rider-on test, meaning it technically can only claim 2nd place, but it's in the ballpark and that's pretty impressive for a small British brand.

Trek Checkmate SLR

The Checkmate SLR tested here is strangely specced, and the price is caveated.

Upon asking our contact at Trek for a bike to borrow, we were sent to the local Trek store to collect one, literally off the shop floor. Despite this, it isn't the bike you'd end up with if you went to the Trek website.

It's equipped with SRAM Force AXS, but the older version, not the XPLR version that is now available. This bike previously retailed for £8,500, as far as we can find online, but is now discounted. The XPLR version is a slightly more sensible $8,199 / £7,000 / €7,499.

Its result won't blow anyone away, and we didn't have permission to cut the steerer on this model; it landed in 7th in the bike-only test and 6th with a rider, beyond the reach of 5th place, even with the error margin in mind.

3T Racemax 2 Italia

The Racemax 2 Italia was a last-minute addition to the runlist, and it was a little hard done by with our protocol. Thanks to the More2 stem, we couldn't drop the handlebar without cutting the steerer, and we didn't have permission to do that, so it was run a couple of cm higher than the other bikes, which undoubtedly affected its result in the rider-on test. It also had a wide handlebar with a mega flare, which pushed my arms out wider than the rest, too. Still, it beat the Basso and Lauf.

And that aside, in the bike-only test, it performed well, landing an impressive 3rd place, dropping to 4th with the Enve wheels (which is a compliment to the 3T Discus wheels it ships with).

Basso Palta III

The Palta's price is another with a caveat. We were shipped the bike with Shimano's new GRX 717 wireless Di2 groupset. For all my searching, I can't find it listed in this setup anywhere to get the price, and in the bike builder on Basso's website, the Miche wheels aren't given as an option.

Still, it's a premium bike. Some budget-friendly builds are available, but the top-spec model with Red XPLR and Fulcrum Sharq wheels lands at a few dollars shy of $11,000.

The Italian brand will be pretty disappointed with its result, but will take solace in the fact that a 1x groupset and one-piece cockpit, which are both available, would likely have helped it climb the table. They'd have probably helped its weight too, which was a notable outlier compared to the other bikes here.

Lauf Seigla

Sometimes I come away from these tests and feel bad for the bike in last place. That's especially true for Lauf, whose Seigla was actually already in stock here at CN HQ for another project.

Quite insanely, you could buy almost three of these for every Dogma GR (albeit this comes with Force XPLR), so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but it's valuable info. A lot of people still see the Seigla as the ideal race bike, and I don't disagree with them, but even just looking at it, you can see there'll be an aero detriment. Now we can put a figure to that delta, and people can decide whether it's bigger than they're willing to accept, or worth it for the massive cost savings.

It's also a bike that'll be significantly easier to work on than most others here, thanks to the external cables and two-piece bar/stem. You could easily play around with the fit, too, to optimise your own position and close that aero gap (although you could then just apply that new position to the fast bike and be even further ahead).

Also, given our rolling resistance data says a 57mm tyre can save you 14.42 watts compared to a 45mm tyre when riding on cobbles, and that the Seigla is only 11.96 watts less aerodynamic than the Dogma GR, it would actually be faster to the tune of 2.46 watts. You could then spend the ~$9k you have left in your bank on a pair of the Enve wheels, and be almost 11 watts better off!

Also worth mentioning is that for an extra $350 / €300 / £260, you can get the Grit fork, which offers more vibration-smoothing tech that would probably take this saving even further.

Of course, that's all binary, though. You could slap a set of wide tyres into the Crux, the Anti Matter, and be even further ahead. Or even the new Factor, the new Canyon, or the wild-looking new Ridley, which we've not got here, but each looks to hop on the wide tyre trend that Lauf seemingly started.

Gravel bikes are changing, and Lauf's wide-tyre party trick is becoming ever more common. It is going to need to adapt in order to keep up.

Thank yous

Many words later, I'd like to round off this feature with a few obrigados to the people and brands that helped to make it happen.

Firstly and most importantly, Cyclingnews Members: Without your support, these tests wouldn't happen. The fact you're reading this confirms you're a member, so thank you. If you want to help us spread the word even further, tell your friends to join up and share this story on social media!

Enve: For the paid placement support and loan of the G SES 6.7 wheels. It doesn't affect the impartiality of our test, but helps us add an extra stream of data to what we already have, and helps us do more of them.

Each of the brands featured: To 3T, Argon 18, Basso, Lauf, Pinarello, Reap, Specialized, Trek and Wilier. Some of which were easier than others, since we had the bike in for other things already, but Reap went out of their way to supply a bike in the exact spec we requested, even hand-delivering it via a four-hour drive. Argon 18 and Wilier also hand-delivered the bikes, while Pinarello and Trek went out of their way to ensure we had one in time.

Such an empirical test as this must have a loser, and we appreciate that accepting our request involves a risk, as well as a logistical (and oftentimes financial) cost to get the bike to us.

A special thanks to Specialized: It's not uncommon for a bike brand to let media test ride a bike under embargo before launch, but to send one for an empirical test like this carries a risk. If it does badly, it's not just one reviewer's opinion, but data laid bare for all to see, and the bike's launch could well stutter in its wake.

Trusting that the Crux is good enough to take that risk shows a confidence that should reassure potential buyers, and trusting us to perform a fair test is the biggest compliment you could give. We don't take that responsibility lightly.

Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub: For operating the wind tunnel, swapping the bikes over between tests, and providing general support on the day to keep our cadence high.

Extra UK: For the loan of the Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH tyres.

Madison UK: For the loan of Elite Vico Carbon bottle cages, Elite Fly bottles, and Vittoria Terreno T30 tyres.

Schwalbe: In my last-minute panic to get a second 'control' tyre for all the bikes, Schwalbe kindly shipped a box full of G-One RS Pro tyres. Sadly, it landed a few hours too late to be included, but we appreciate the support all the same.

Ergon: For the loan of the Allroad women's saddles, which standardise the bike only tests a little more accurately, and make setting up the bikes a much easier process.

Specialized has today launched the all-new Crux 5, and in doing so, effectively killed it off as a cyclo-cross bike. With a longer, slacker geometry, the American brand has committed the platform to the trendier category of gravel racing.

The headline figures state a 15.2-watt aero saving over its predecessor, a bigger tyre clearance of 55mm (vs 47mm before), builds that start as low as 6.9kg, and the same balanced ride characteristics that tread a fine line between stiff, responsive, and compliant.

We spotted a Crux being raced at the Gralloch event in Scotland recently, and expect to see it in action at Unbound Gravel this weekend.

Here at Cyclingnews, we’ve had it in the wind tunnel alongside competitors from Argon 18, Wilier, Reap, Basso, and more. Not only did it hold its own very well, but it was also far lighter than anything else on test.

You can head to our wind tunnel gravel bike group test for the full details and results, but here I’m going to focus on Specialized’s claims, and my (albeit short) experience of how the bike rides.

A Tarmac with wide tyres

I’ve already seen commenters likening the new Crux to a Tarmac SL8 with wide tyres. The dropped seat stays, the aero seat post, and the overall visual profile make it strongly resemble the brand’s race bike.

But that would be an unfair appraisal. It’s true that the bike takes learnings from both the SL8 and the outgoing Crux, but it features entirely new tube shapes throughout, new geometry, new wheels, new cockpit, and an impressive combo of 55mm tyre clearance, clearance for a 52mm chainring, and 425mm chainstays.

The changes in geometry see the seat tube steepen by 0.5°, the head tube slacken by the same figure, the reach and wheelbase increase, a lower bottom bracket, shorter cranks, and altogether a more gravel-centred approach. And while it will likely still function perfectly well as a ‘cross bike, it’s no longer trying to tread that line between the two disciplines.

Notably, in the pursuit of those aero gains, the frame has gained a few grams - it's 64 grams heavier in the 56cm frame - but complete builds are actually now lighter, thanks to the lighter wheels and one-piece cockpit, with builds starting from 6.9kg with the Terra CLX III wheels, or 7.1kg with the 'chopped aero' Terra Aero CLX wheels.

The equation of speed

In recent years, if someone in the bike world describes something as 'faster', more often than not, they actually mean 'more aerodynamic'. Specialized is looking to change that. Using the same technology that Formula 1 uses to calculate lap times, the brand has developed what it's calling 'The Equation of Speed'.

This equation is all of the physics that sit between the power being put into the pedals, and the speed at which you travel, such as the basic metrics like weight, rolling resistance and aerodynamics, but also things like cornering traction, skill level, surface roughness, weather, and more.

Specialized's gravel team raced most of the 2025 season with small telemetry boxes fitted beneath their saddles to measure the roughness of all of the major Lifetime Grand Prix courses. This, along with Fit files, countless hours of wind tunnel testing in various positions, and a whole load more data, means the brand can simulate races with extreme accuracy.

At its most basic, this can then advise on equipment changes for certain courses: frame selection, light vs aero wheels, tyre choice, and more. But using this tool, the brand can also measure the effect of a bike's development.

One part of this is the Crux's low weight. Given that rolling resistance scales with weight, a heavier bike will have a higher rolling resistance, in addition to the obvious fact that a heavier bike is slower to accelerate and harder to climb with.

And since the power to overcome aero drag scales with the cube of speed, when you compare to road riding, the slower speeds and rougher surfaces of gravel mean weight and rolling resistance carry an even greater importance.

Bikes aren't trucks

When you measure the aerodynamic drag of a bike, it's common to test at a variety of wind angles – known as yaw angles – for a more complete picture of how aero it is. However, since we ourselves essentially create our own headwind by moving through it, we're more likely to see a wind angle close to zero degrees (a direct headwind).

Then, as the angle increases, the amount of time you experience it reduces. So you'll see +/-1° more than +/-2°, which you'll see more than +/-3°, and so on, creating a bell curve centred around 0°. In windier areas, this bell curve flattens slightly, but the principle remains.

As a result, when averaging out the results from a wind tunnel test, it's common to 'weight' the results such that more importance is placed on lower angles, to give a fairer reflection of real-life conditions.

Specialized says that all of its existing protocols are taken from the automotive industry, which relies on ambient wind conditions measured at 3m off the ground, as it is relevant for a truck.

The problem, it says, is that the wind conditions at 3m off the ground are generally much higher than the 1m height that is more relevant for bikes, meaning that the yaw angle distribution being measured is inaccurate.

It says that at 1m, where the ambient wind conditions are slower, more weight should be focussed on 0°, meaning the fastest bike is actually one that is narrowest or has the smallest frontal area. It says that deep tubes work in those windier conditions, but for the majority of riding that cyclists will experience, they are simply dead weight. This insight provides an interesting look into the current Specialized bike design philosophy.

'Cross is dead

The big news is that Specialized no longer makes a cyclo-cross bike. The brand is now all in on gravel racing, as made abundantly clear by the ability to fit 55mm tyres, a 52t chainring, and its longer, slacker fit.

By switching to 1x compatible only (although interestingly, it is still compatible with mechanical groupsets), the bike has managed to both increase the tyre clearance and the chainring clearance, without switching to a dropped chainstay or lengthening the chainstays compared to the outgoing Crux. They are still 425mm, and the snappy handling has been retained as a result.

Combined with the steeper seat tube and zero offset post, the Crux gets shorter cranks, 2.5mm shorter than the old Crux for the same frame size. And thanks to the bigger tyres and shorter cranks, the bottom bracket was lowered by 6mm too.

The cockpit has also narrowed by 20mm, compared to an equivalent size in the old Crux. The handlebars now run from 38 to 42cm, and have a 12° flare.

First ride impressions

I've long been a fan of the Crux platform. I owned a Crux 2. I loved the Crux 4 when I reviewed it, yet I already think the Crux 5 is better.

I rode it with 50mm Specialized Tracer tyres, and although there are bikes that offer bigger clearances, I would be happy to own a bike with the 55mm clearance offered here.

I've ridden it twice, for a total of around 80km, in both wet and dry conditions, with a really good mix of terrain including long climbs, technical descents, singletrack, chunky fireroad, road climbs, and twisting coast road descents. It didn't miss a beat.

It has the same qualities as the old Crux, but now with added steamroller mode, as found on the wide-tyred Allied Able and others. This means you can straight-line chunky descents without too much worry for what you're going to hit – within reason of course – knowing that the bike won't pinball you from one rock to the next.

It has that flickable, fun nature of the outgoing Crux, so it was easy to pop it over drainage channels or bigger rocks to keep speed high. And the rim beads on the Terra CLX Aero wheels are so wide that even when you do get things wrong and slam a rock, you're probably just going to bounce off and continue riding, rather than be forced to get the plugs out.

That flickable nature also means singletrack is a hoot, and when we were pedalling across town on the start of our ride, I couldn't help but use kerbs and speed bumps as little ramps like I was 13 years old again. It's really that fun to ride.

Naturally, with the switch to the integrated cockpit, it will be slightly less fun to own, with its internal cable routing making it more complicated and thus more expensive to service.

It also means it's tougher to swap the cockpit to get the right fit, whereas you could swap the stem length or the bar width on the old bike without too much faff. Either you'll be lucky enough to have a local bike shop that will offer this service free of charge when buying, or you'll be forced to spend extra before you've even turned a pedal.

Many riders will also bemoan the decision to switch to dropped seatstays, which means it loses the traditional double diamond frame design. I've never found this an issue, so I'm perhaps the wrong person to comment. Personal tastes will remain forever personal, and I can't tell you what to like.

The new S-Level

In an interesting move, the brand is also revealing a new S-Level tier of bikes, which closes the gap somewhat between S-Works models and the rest of the range.

S-Works remains the flagship model tier, with the Fact 12R carbon, SRAM Red AXS XPLR builds, and the top-spec wheels, cockpit, and saddle.

The S-Level now pairs the Fact 10R frame with Red AXS XPLR, with the second-tier wheels and saddle. It also gets the new Terra one-piece cockpit.

This, according to Specialized, is because it believes the Fact 10R frame is good enough to compete with top-spec models from competitors, and so wants to give riders the option to spec it with SRAM's top-tier groupset.

Models and pricing

There are four fully built variants of the Crux 5. An S-Works model with Fact 12R carbon frame, SRAM Red XPLR groupset, and all the bells and whistles (outlined below in more detail). Then three models of the Fact 10R frame, with Red, Force and Rival groupsets respectively.

Then the two framesets will be sold separately, although the Fact 10R will only be available in certain territories.

S-Works Crux 5 AXS: US $14,000 / €13,999 / £11,999 / AU $19,500

• Fact 12R Frame
• SRAM Red AXS XPLR
• Roval Terra Aero CLX wheelset
• Roval Terra integrated cockpit
• 7.1kg

Crux 5 S-Level: US $10,500 / €10,499 / £8,799 / AU $14,900

• Fact 10R Frame
• SRAM Red AXS XPLR
• Roval Terra CL wheelset
• Roval Terra integrated cockpit
• 7.7kg

Crux Expert AXS: US $7,000 / €6,999 / £5,999 / AU $9,500

• Fact 10R Frame
• SRAM Force AXS XPLR
• Roval Terra C III wheelset
• Roval Terra handlebar and Rapide stem
• 8.22kg

Crux Comp: US $4,500 / €4,499 / £3,999 / AU $6,200

• Fact 10R Frame
• SRAM Rival AXS XPLR
• DT Swiss G-500 wheelset
• Alloy handlebar and Rapide stem
• 8.89kg

S-Works Crux frameset: US $5,800 / €5,799 / £5,249 / AU $8,500

• Fact 12R Frame
• 789g

Fact 10R frameset: US $3,500 / AU $5,000

• Fact 10R Frame
• 897g

There’s been a steady change in the world of the best gravel bikes in recent years towards greater and greater emulation of mountain bikes. Bigger tyres, suspension, slacker geometry, but everything has been somewhat incremental. A hair more clearance here, a half degree more rad in the head tube there; don’t upset the market, we’ve got a good thing going on here!

Stooge, a boutique brand based in Shropshire, makes ‘beautiful bikes that stand outside of any trends or fashions, that handle wonderfully and challenge the common perception that a rigid bike is a lesser bike.’ Its bikes are quite different, and have been pushing massive tyres and progressive geometry for some years now.

I’ll admit, I’ve been a Stooge customer. I’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. I owned a beautiful blue MK4 that I smashed about the Lake District on before selling it to my far more capable colleague, Graham. As such, I was quite excited to call in, build up, and then test out the Rambler, the brand's only drop bar offering. It’s not been plain sailing, though. It’s a great bike for some things, but for others it’s decidedly flawed. It’s put a big grin on my face at times, and offers up a taste of a wonderfully juvenile ride experience, but at other times it has left me frustrated at the sheer bloody-minded contrarianism of the thing.

Design and aesthetics

You don’t have to be a bike expert to see that the Stooge Rambler is a different beast from basically every other gravel bike out there. It’s steel, which you’ll probably have guessed, but fabricated with a beautiful split top tube that curves down either side of the seat tube to become the seat stays. You might not have noticed that, though, because the fork is usually what people look at first. A chunky, twin-plate crown with sloping shoulders anchors the legs, beset with endless eyelets, that curve and taper in a deeply classique way.

It’s not suspension-corrected, either. It’s designed to be run rigid, with a super-slack 69º head angle and capacity for a humongous 2.8” tyre up front (not quite matched by 2.6” in the rear). You could run it with mudguards and still have room for 2.4” tyres, which is pretty wild, and something I may try out down the line when the weather turns.

You can’t get complete builds, so if you want one be prepared to either build it yourself or employ the help of a decent bike shop. If you live within striking distance of the New Forest, the lovely Woods Cyclery has plenty of experience, and it makes a nice weekend away if nothing else. Building it yourself, as I found, is a bit of a nightmare, and why, despite having had the frame since January 2025, it took me so long to actually get around to reviewing the thing.

It’s a drop bar bike, though you could run it with flat bars with a longer stem than is advised. SRAM is probably your best bet for inter-compatibility here, but I went with Shimano GRX, before realising that the cranks wouldn’t fit, as it has an MTB width BSA BB shell in the eccentric bottom bracket (something that allows you to run it singlespeed, if you so wish). Deore crank it is, then. You can’t fit a complete GRX brake, though, as the brake mounts are IS mount, not flat mount, so I had to opt for XT brake callipers with IS mount adapters. The wheels are 27.5”, or 650b for you roadies, a standard that is as good as dead for gravel bikes and not hugely common for MTB either, especially when the rear axle spacing is non-boost.

Basically, you need to make your life easy and do what Stooge suggests and just get a set of Hope Fortus wheels, which are good but not the lightest. I shod mine with Vittoria Mezcals, which have since been renamed the T70.

Stooge suggests choosing a size that allows you to run a 50-60mm stem, and initially that’s what I did, but then swapped to a 90mm when I found I felt just a bit too off the back of the bike; my roadie is showing, I guess.

A dropper was a must for a bike that pertains to be supremely capable on the rough stuff, topped with a Brooks Swift saddle, partially because I love Brooks saddles as they allow me to ride without padded shorts, and partially because it looks right. Actually the whole thing looks right; it’s gorgeous, and got just as many admiring comments from my riding buddies as when I turn up on the next 'worlds fastest aero bike'. Even strangers would tell me it was beautiful, which rarely ever happens.

Looks matter little, though, if it doesn’t ride well, and it does in the right context.

Performance

The clue, as I found out to the cost of my knees, is in the name. This is a bike predisposed to ambling. Smell the flowers, enjoy the view, take a photo, take your time. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a fast bike, and as such, it required a bit of mental recalibration. I took it on a speedy gravel group ride one evening, involving a fair bit of elevation, and got home feeling like I must be very fatigued, as I simply couldn’t keep up. Dropped like a stone on every climb. I got the scales out, out of curiosity:

15.12kg.

Fifteen! That’s as-ridden, with a frame bag of spares (a small multi-tool, a small mini-pump, a TPU tube, a tubeless plug, and some plastic levers), half an un-drunk water bottle, and a computer, but even so, fifteen kilograms in bike terms means it weighs the same as the USS Enterprise. The wheels aren’t all that light, but it’s by no means a heavy build. Yes, it has a leather saddle, but it also has carbon bars, titanium bottle cages, and I even swapped out as many of the 3,000 M5 boss bolts to titanium ones as I could. That’s like riding a Crux with a second Crux on your back. Hell, it’s more than some e-bikes now, and it really does slow you down uphill. This only matters if you’re gasping trying to keep up with your usual group ride, but even if you’re not, it makes life harder if you live somewhere lumpy.

Loaded up with an off-road tour’s worth of stuff, the additional weight of the bike makes up a smaller proportion of the overall system weight, but it is worth bearing in mind that this is still bulk you’re going to be shipping up hill and down dale regardless of pace.

The weight also has impacts outside of climbs. On singletrack, it felt rather cumbersome, though I will admit I am used to much more road-like front ends, but I put this down to a combo of the bulk of the thing and the 69º head angle.

It is, to all intents and purposes, a mountain bike, but lacks the agility. However, on some terrain, it absolutely shines. Genuine off-road rambling is a delight. A jaunt to the woods to pick wild garlic was joyous, and any time I pointed it downhill, on or off-road, I was left beaming like an eight-year-old. It is absurdly stable, whatever the surface, and on flowing open corners, you can hit them at warp speed. I even managed to pick up a top ten on a popular road descent, mostly because I could drop the saddle and stay in a supertuck with absolute confidence. I do think fitting a slightly longer stem than was advised made it grip a little better at the front end, but that is going to be a personal fit issue. It’s doing the bike a disservice to simply distil it down to a ‘modern klunker’, but of any bike I’ve ever ridden, it screams more than anything else ‘ride up a big lumpy hill just to send it back down again’, and I kind of love it for that. Did I pretend in my mind’s eye that I was hurling down the Repack course in late ‘70’s California? Of course I did.

Weirdly, I was about to type ‘you needn’t be put off by the lack of a suspension fork’, before I remembered it’s a gravel bike and that’s still very much not the norm. It actually feels like, as tyres get wider, the short-term industry flirtation with suspension doesn’t seem to have blossomed into a full romance, so in this regard it’s future-proof.

It’s a lot of bike to ramble about on, but if you measure your rides by time rather than distance, watts, calories, or some sort of suffer-based metric, it very quickly gets under your skin. It may be flawed, it may weigh a ton, but when I am on my own and not chasing a group, I haven’t had a ride on it I didn’t enjoy, whether that’s in the woods or just going to buy paint from the hardware store. If my home city of Bristol weren’t so bad for bike theft and it weren’t so clearly going to draw attention, I’d use it every day for everything.

I also ran it initially with flats before swapping to clipless gravel pedals. While it’s slow on climbs, the massive tyres and low gearing on offer with what is effectively an MTB drivetrain mean you could probably ride up the side of a building, albeit slowly. I was able to rumble over steep, rocky terrain that I have often found myself walking up on less.

Value

Normally, in this bit, I compare X option to Y option, but there really isn’t anything comparable to compare the rambler to. For £800, a figure itself that shows it’s based on what the brand thinks it’s worth rather than £799.99 to trick you, you get a steel frame that can ride over almost any terrain. You can run it drop bar or flat bar, you can fit a rack, a full frame bag, you could run it fixed if you’re a moron, or singlespeed if you just need your head examined in a good way. You can run a pannier rack, you can run mudguards AND still have capacity to fit mega tyres. It can sort of do whatever you want it to off-road, other than go fast.

I would say part of the fun, if you can call realising yet another part won’t fit because of some needlessly contrarian design decisions, fun, is in the building of the thing. Much like the Fairlights I’ve ridden, it’s a delight to work on, once everything is in order. External everything, big bolts, threaded bottom bracket. It’s utilitarian, and all the better for it, and despite the massive weight of the thing, I think it’s pretty good value for £800 if it fits your use case.

Verdict

It’s hard for me to overlook the sheer mass of the thing. It really does hamstring the ride feel for the kind of gravel riding I do, and it makes singletrack a bit of a battle. It’s not aero, it’s been a nightmare to put together with quite backwards-thinking standards, it’s so close to being a mountain bike that you should probably just get a mountain bike…and yet I love it, that’s the mad thing.

Before I spent my time testing aero bikes and deliberating on the advantages and disadvantages of aerodynamic tyres, I used to spend a significant portion of my riding time essentially messing about. I’d ride up Lake District passes on a late ‘80’s Specialized Rockhopper with a saddlebag of sandwiches for the joy of the endeavour. I rode truly horrendous fixed-gear gravel bikes and ancient tandems. I even made myself a cantilever-brake, downtube shifter touring bike and rode it halfway down France.

In fact, my happiest memory on a bike was riding through the woods in Sweden on a beat-up town bike with a coaster brake. None of these bikes was terribly good by any measurable metric, but they all brought or continue to bring me immense joy, and the Rambler kinda fits into this category. Just typing this now, I want to go and ride it for a little while in the woods.

You can’t really compare it to modern gravel bikes because it’s not designed to do the same job. If you want to set an FKT, this isn’t the bike to do it on. I can absolutely see why The Woods Cyclery stocks them, though, as I think it might be the perfect bike for the New Forest, or cosplaying the pages of the Rough Stuff Fellowship Archive photobooks.

Would I change anything if I had my time again to build it? I think I’d stick a wide range 50.4 BCD double chainset on it and make it work somehow – I’ve seen it done –, and have a real crawler gear for uphill and a bigger ring for the rest of the time. I’d leave flat pedals on and fit a small front rack. I’d probably fit mudguards too, and probably some 2.25” Schwalbe G-One Allround tyres, and stop trying to treat it like MTB-minus and view it more as gravel-plus. I still might do all of these things. Maybe I’ll go all in and lace a coaster brake to the rear rim and see how quickly I can vaporise the grease inside it…

The defending champion will race Unbound Gravel aboard a 32" bike this weekend, with Scott creating a prototype gravel bike to be ridden by Cameron Jones, but never to be released.

Bigger-wheeled 32" gravel bikes have been a tech theme of this year, and this moment signals a milestone as a major manufacturer experiments with the technology in the biggest gravel event in the world.

Scott has in fact created a pair of the prototype 32" gravel race bikes for the flagship Unbound Gravel 200 event, with Tour Divide and Silk Mountain Race winner Robin Gemperle also competing on the new bike.

Both athletes have been testing out 32" wheeled bikes since last year. According to Scott, it took a single test ride for both riders to be sold on 32" for Unbound.

The bikes themselves are prototype gravel RC models; 'RC' stands for Racing Concept in Scott nomenclature, and the brand has stated that these bikes "will never be released on the market".

Scott mentioned how a gravel race, in particular Unbound, is a great test ground for revealing how a system performs under "real-world riding stress".

"This bike makes you feel like you're levitating over the surface," said Jones. "I'll be experiencing a road race while everybody else is racing gravel.

"The driving traction and cornering grip is revolutionary. I'm genuinely scared how fast I'll be able to corner once on a course with proper descents."

Jones and Gemperle will ride the prototype RC gravel bike frame, but with differing builds.

Jones's bike will feature a mixed Shimano drivetrain with Dura-Ace, XTR and GRX components, along with prototype Industry Nine wheels and 50mm Schwalbe RX tyres.

Gemperle's bike will run a SRAM Red AXS / XPLR drivetrain, a '32" prototype wheelset' and the same tyres.

Why 32" wheels, and why now?

Debate surrounding 32" wheels has been swirling all year, but they are nothing new, having been a niche, little-used size for a long time. What is new is the fact that more and more manufacturers and brands are producing gravel bikes with this wheel size.

We spotted 32" wheels at the Cycleworld Düsseldorf show back in March, and again being exhibited at Bespoked London a few months later.

A regular '700c' wheel, the de-rigueur sizing standard for every road and gravel bike these days, has a BSD (Bead Seat Diameter) of 622mm, whereas a 32" wheel has a BSD of 686mm.

Bigger wheels mean more speed, and for gravel racers on fast courses, a bigger wheel may well offer an advantage over a 700c option. There's also a point on improved obstacle rollover, something that formed a key part of the debate when the mountain bike world embraced 29" wheels.

32" bikes are generally said to better suit taller riders, due to the bigger size and larger frames, which need to be custom-made to suit the wheels.

Gravel racing equipment is still developing rapidly, and a focus on making bikes faster is still a key direction of travel. If competitors decide 32" wheels offer an advantage and embrace them, we may see more and more brands creating bikes for this larger size.

New standards and sizes are often met with scorn in the bike world. Unbound will provide a stern test for these Scott prototypes; perhaps a successful outing at the weekend will soften some critics' views on these big-wheeled bikes.

Tom Pidcock continued to rule supreme in the Nové Mesto Men's Elite XC event of the UCI Mountain Bike World Series, collecting his fifth top title in the race in as many starts.

Meanwhile in the women's equivalent event, Austrian star Laura Stigger - a road racer for a year with SD Worx-Protime in 2025 - claimed victory by nearly a minute, her first in MTB for 2026.

The battle for the podium in the technical woodlands circuit in the Czech Republic was much more intense, with Sina Frei, Jenny Rissveds and Nicole Koller fighting for two spots. Finally Koller fell off the pace, with Rissveds outsprinting Frei for the silver, 47 seconds down on Stigger, while Koller crossed the line in fourth, 56 seconds down.

Meanwhile in the men's race, Pidcock opened up a good gap early on, only for France's Luca Martin, the winner at Les Gets last year, to fight back. Eventually, Pidcock crossed the line for yet another win, but only by 18 seconds. Third was Switzerland's Filippo Colombo, 1:18 down.

"I didn't make it easy for myself, the level rises each year and i can't rest on my laurels," Pidcock, second the previous day behind France's Mathis Azzaro in the XCC event, said in a statement reported by Sporza.

“I had a really good start and I was probably a bit too keen in the first laps” he added in a press release from Pinarello-Q36.5, adding he'd used his strength on the climbs to make the difference.

"When Luca went in front, I knew that was a point where everyone was kind of showing themselves a little bit and I thought, I will test the water and see what happens. But it's a long way. Luca was pushing me all the way. He kept coming close and I had to kick again a few times.

“My fitness is good, but when I haven't done many races, I need to be a bit more cautious than perhaps in another part of the season” he continued.

“I think it shows everyone is pushing, everyone is getting better and stronger. The level of the sport keeps getting higher and higher. It keeps me on my toes because I can't rest on my laurels. These guys are working just as hard.”

Gravel is a spectrum. All the way from praying for grip on 28c tyres to falling asleep climbing on a full blown MTB. Important context as someone who mainly rides on the road or heads straight to that sweet sweet singletrack on an XC bike.

The best gravel bikes aim to fit neatly in the middle somewhere; confident enough to have fun, fast enough to keep you awake. So what does the Specialized Crux DSW Comp have to offer? Is it a road bike with an identity crisis? Is it enough to make the most mundane off-road riding enjoyable?

To answer these questions I took the “lightest alloy gravel bike” out on a platter of central Scotland's finest gravel and tarmac. A mixture of chunky and smooth, often wet, fast and hilly.

Design and Aesthetics

Perhaps taking aesthetic cues from the Tarmac SL4, the Crux paints a classic silhouette, with clean lines and simple tube shapes. Something I greatly appreciate.

The clean looks also carry over to the simple frame features and glorious lack of gimmicks. A round 27.2mm seatpost, 68mm BSA BB, three bottle cage mounts, 47mm tyre clearance and most importantly, no headset cable routing. Personally I believe this feature has no place on off road bikes but I understand some people want that clean look. I would love to see mudguard mounts, but I suppose we can’t expect that from a bike designed in California.

The 40c Pathfinder tyres hint at the bikes intended use. As the current trend is to go wider and wider, I would like to see that tyre clearance fully utilised out of the box but I appreciate Specialized isn't trying to make the Crux something it isn’t. After all, Specialized has the Diverge in its range for those more adventurous/chunky gravel rides.

SRAM provides the shifting and brakes with Apex XPLR mechanical, with a generous 11/46T cassette and 40T chainring. We also have 160mm rotors front and rear.

DT Swiss rims are a nice touch but you won’t see that label on the OEM hubs; a choice to keep cost down as is common practice at this more budget friendly price range.

The Comp model we have here is the only complete build of this bike, but I am glad to see a frame only option available though; something I wish more brands would offer.

The stock flared handlebars are quite wide. Quoted at 42cm they measure closer to 43cm on the tops and 47cm on the drops. This is matched with a 100mm stem for some quick handling and plenty of leverage when sprinting.

The tan wall Pathfinders go down well aesthetically and adding a couple of stainless steel bottle cages really tied the whole bike together. I can’t help but think some classic silver spokes and hubs would complete the look Specialized was going for here but the black does disappear nicely.

Specialized positions the Crux DSW as a more affordable version of the Carbon fibre Crux and indeed, the geometry is identical. To achieve a similar ride feel, Specialized makes great use of its “D’Aluisio Smartweld Technology”, a patented manufacturing technique that heavily hydroforms the tubing to create stronger welds and reduce weight. You can see it most clearly around the bottom bracket; the shell and down tube are formed from one single tube. The welds aren’t smoothed down but you’d be hard pressed to find nicer joints on another mass produced alloy bike. Something that really helps the Crux DSW stand out from its competitors. I feel Specialized has nailed this across its whole alloy lineup.

Overall the Crux DSW is quite the handsome bike. Simple shapes and lines that let the geometry and design choices speak for itself.

Performance

These Specialized Pathfinders roll nicely on the road. They aren’t the fastest according to Bicyclerollingresistance.com, but didn’t feel like I was dragging an anchor behind me. They do a great job smoothing road chatter in the 40c size on this bike. I was also able to fit a mudguard through the fork with the extra space. If you wanted to use this bike for cyclocross you’d have huge amounts of mud clearance. Similarly, off-road in dry conditions, these tyres roll very nicely. The shoulder knobs hook up well in the corners and I found the traction good on some pretty steep gravel climbs. In the wet, it's a different story; next to no grip on mud and poor braking performance, as expected for a semi slick. These are perfectly suited in most scenarios however.

The wheels are fine. Basic hubs and spokes and a decently wide rim at 24mm inner diameter. J-bend spokes are easy to replace and find in most bike shops and the cartridge bearing hubs can be serviced, so these should be a reliable workhorse wheelset for many years. However these straight gauge spokes lead to a stiff, wooden feeling while riding. I would be looking to upgrade to a nicer wheelset for an improved performance.

The Sram Apex brakes give good modulation but lacking outright power at higher speed and on steeper tracks. The hoods are a great shape though and the levers have a generous range of adjustment; useful for those with smaller hands.

One thing did bother me; the flared bar means the edge of the squared off leaver did create a pressure point on my hands. I was able to get comfortable but felt it worth noting if you suffer from hand pain.

1x gearing shines on undulating and more technical terrain where being able to shift quickly to get on top of a gear is important, but it does feel limiting at higher speeds on the road. I often found myself jumping between the 12 and 11 tooth sprockets, looking for a comfortable cadence and coasting descents I would otherwise keep pushing on, especially above 45km/h. It’s more than enough for most riding conditions but if you're looking for that edge in a race or maybe wondering if you could keep up with the local chaingang, I would be wishing for a 2x drivetrain.

This was my first time on SRAM’s mechanical double tap system. Unlike Shimano, SRAM uses a ratcheting escapement mechanism controlled by one paddle instead of two separate levers. It's been around a fair while now and I’ve had some lukewarm experience with it in the repair stand. I was surprised at first with how intuitive it was once I was riding it. It's smooth enough with a nice clack noise from the shifter. Unfortunately I have however found myself getting a little frustrated with it. Trying to shift up just one gear will often lead to a miss shift and the amount of throw required to shift multiple gears is obscene; not great for people with smaller hands.

The most confusing spec choice to me is the handlebars. I really don’t understand the trend for ultra wide, flared drop bars. While I was comfortable on the hoods, the drops just felt so far away and put me so low down that I barely used them and didn’t add anything to my confidence or my ability to take a corner.

Close your eyes and imagine descending a road bike. Now think: how are you steering around corners? Through your hips right? You're not turning the bars like you would with a car steering wheel. So at high speed on the Crux the bars added nothing to my experience and made me significantly less aerodynamic on the road. While at low speed on tight technical trails they did improve the handling but honestly I would rather just be on my mountain bike on terrain like that and I’d have way more fun.

Yes, your more adventure focused gravel bike might benefit from this. The Crux is not that; it’s a tight, nimble, aggressive bike with semi slick tyres. In my opinion the bars just don’t match what Specialized is trying to achieve here. Thankfully the standard a-head cockpit and external hoses allowed me to play around with my position and once I found a match to my road bike fit, the Crux started to make a lot more sense.

Before receiving this bike I visited one of my favourite websites, bikeinsights.com, to compare the sizing to my road bikes and was surprised to find the stack and reach figures to be almost identical. only adding 10mm of reach. So out on the road it did indeed, feel very similar and easy to get used to. The extra wheel base and slacker head angle does well to add stability off-road. In long sweeping bends and at high speed it felt very stable and predictable; a slight departure from the CX roots of the Crux. Those looking for that classic CX race bike feel may want to look elsewhere, but genuine cyclocross geometry is becoming very hard to find nowadays.

Pointing the Crux uphill felt very familiar and it certainly doesn’t feel like an over 9kg bike. With a surprising amount of stiffness from such slender chainstays, the Crux is more than happy under heavy torque. Even on very steep off road climbs I was able to keep traction on the back wheel while keeping the front firmly on the ground. For a bit of fun I took the Crux for a little max effort hill climb up to Stirling castle; a short sharp climb, ending with a cobbled section. The Crux handled this very well; I happily razzed up the tarmac and felt in control over cobbles.

Increasing the gradient and roughness of the trail will help you find the limits very quickly. The Crux is not dancing with the cool MTB kids at the school disco. However if you’re willing to push those limits, it delivers a seriously enjoyable ride, a “by the seat of your pants” experience if you dare. Maybe those MTB kids will notice...

It’s a fantastic handling bike on tarmac and unpaved roads adding an extra dimension to old routes and more mundane trails.

Value

At the time of writing you can find this bike for under £2000 but for the sake of comparison I’ll be comparing it to other bikes at full RRP.

Value is an interesting topic with this bike; £2300 puts the Crux against entry level carbon fibre framed bikes, such as the Giant Revolt Advanced 1 and Cube’s Nuroad C:62 ONE. And comparing it to other alloy bikes like the Trek checkpoint ALR, it’s significantly more expensive. So where’s the value?

Specialized has produced a very high quality frame with the DSW tubing, with excellent welds and paint work as well as those hassle free features. I feel this is what you are paying for: a high end metal bike that competes with similarly priced carbon bikes. And in the subcategory of performance gravel, I don’t see many alloy alternatives.

For me the easier headset cable routing alone is reason enough to buy the Crux over any competitor, cheaper or not.

There was one bike that stood out to me as a compelling alternative; The Fairlight Secan. It’s a fair bit more expensive, but comes with some interesting options if you’re willing to save up.

Verdict

I had a great time with the Crux. It’s an incredibly satisfying bike to ride, in the right conditions. Largely I can forgive all the issues I have with the spec for the handling characteristics alone. It suits the type of gravel riding accessible to me; long road sections to nice wide fireroad tails and green singletrack along with lesser ridden broken tarmac roads. I genuinely could see it as a replacement for a general use road bike; it's fast enough and the option to take a traffic free trail is a novelty that's not lost on me. I think that's where the Crux DSW shines.

The UK's most popular gravel race, the Gralloch, took place at the weekend, with Geerike Schreurs and Lukas Pöstlberger claiming victories in the Elite women's and men's races respectively.

Schreurs is part of the Specialized Off-Road Racing squad and won the women's event on an unknown Specialized gravel bike that we haven't seen before

Gravel racer Ben Thomas took some images of the winning bike post-race, which you can see here. There's also an Instagram video from the Gralloch's page below showing the mystery bike being ridden.

This latest bike comes hot on the heels of a host of new gravel bikes and tech we spotted at the Traka recently, and we will keep our eyes peeled for more in the run-up to Unbound Gravel, which takes place at the end of the month. Given the proximity to the biggest gravel race of the year it's possible this bike will launch around Unbound, though we will have to wait and see to be sure.

Specialized offers two gravel bikes currently, the Crux and the Diverge. The latest Diverge 4 launched back in September 2025. The Crux has been around in its current form for longer, though it received a UDH frame compatibility update a couple of years ago.

This is certainly a more aero-focused machine, and looks at face value to us like a gravel going Tarmac SL7 frame. Has the Crux, regarded as one of the best gravel bikes around, gone aero?

There are plenty of aero features to be observed here, including the aero seatpost, dropped seatstays, and integrated handlebar and stem. The existing Crux features a round seatpost, some external cabling, and a more traditional frame tube design. This could be a major overhaul if it is a new version.

If you're currently glued to the Giro d'Italia and are enjoying the Grand Tour that comes fully loaded with Italian culture and passion, you may be feeling inspired and considering a new bike or an upgrade.

For most people, shopping for the best road bikes on the market can leave a serious dent in their finances. Our best overall road bike choice is the Factor OSTRO VAM, and this 5-star-rated dream machine will cost you upwards of £10,000.

Saying that, a bike that has already proven itself at the highest level of the UCI WorldTour, with a 5th place in the Tour de France, a 4th place in the GC, and an overall Team Classification and stage victory (2025) at the Giro, all on its resume, is the Van Rysel RCR-Pro.

Shop the Van Rysel range with up to 33% off at Decathlon.

Right now at Decathlon, you can pick up either the RCR-R Pro or the RCR-F Pro with massive discounts of up to 33% off. The Van Rysel bikes are ridden by the Decathlon CMA CGM (previously Decathlon-AG2R La Mondiale), and for anyone after a pro-level machine, with a top-end spec, at an incredible price, then you won't go far wrong in considering one of these.

Below, I've linked the best Decathlon deals and also added the Shimano 105 DI2-equipped RCR-R. That scored a 4-star rating in our Van Rysel RCR-R review, and is a great option as one of the best budget road bikes, currently with a 27% discount, down to just £3,299, and a saving of £1,200.

It's worth noting that these bike deals seem to be flying off the shelves as sizing is limited, so we'd suggest moving fast if you're considering pulling the trigger on any of these Van Rysel bikes.

Will Jones, Cyclingnews' Senior Tech Writer, rated the Van Rysel RCR-F with a 4 out of 5 star review, and although (at full price) it had a few flaws, he reckoned it was still undoubtedly "very fast". Will also noted the RCR-F had a stiffer front end, ready to handle your best sprint efforts, and was overall a "high-quality package", which at its discounted price is now even better.

The RCR-F Pro comes equipped with Shimano Ultegra Di2, and its wind tunnel-developed Super High Mod Carbon frame rolls on one of the best road bike wheels from Swiss Side, and its Hadron² 625 Classic carbon wheels. These are 50mm deep-section, tubeless-compatible wheels known for their aerodynamic performance, and come paired with Continental GP5000 S TR tyres.

The RCR-R Pro Team Edition not only comes in the stunning Decathlon AG2R paint job, but also has an equally impressive spec sheet, including a Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 groupset, and with Shimano's top shifting and braking power, it makes this price very appealing.

Elsewhere, the RCR-R has an integrated Shimano FC-R9200-P power meter, Swiss Side Hadron² Ultimate 500 wheels, and the same GP5000 tyres.

These highlighted Van Rysel deals are UK only, but below you'll find the best prices on the Van Rysel and its top-rated kit, like the Van Rysel RCR MIPS helmet from other retailers, relevant to your currency and location.

Editor's Note:

At the time of publishing, the 2026 Highland Trail 550 is in full swing. It started on Saturday morning, so competitors are currently on their third day of riding. Graham has stopped for just six hours and 25 minutes since then.

He currently sits in 2nd place, and is closing in on Checkpoint Six at Fisherfield, having covered 560km, most of which on rough mountain bike - and hike-a-bike - terrain.

You can follow along with Graham's progress here.

Below is a bike check and recap of Graham's 2025 attempt. His setup remains largely unchanged for this year.

Aptly, the story begins in Fisherfield.

It’s been raining more on than off for the last 60 hours, but in this remote valley, sandwiched between towering mountains, it’s really coming down hard now. I squint at my GPS, I’m still on track, although there isn’t even the suggestion of a path or trail through the bog in front of me. I trudge on, knowing I have at least another couple of hours of pushing across waterlogged ground and over a mountain pass before I will be able to start riding again. This is Fisherfield, and it’s considered the crux of the Highland Trail 550, a bikepacking race that has earned a reputation for being extremely attritional and unforgiving.

Although Fisherfield is one of the most challenging parts of the route, it isn’t the only section that will derail a rider's race. The HT550 route snakes its way through the Highlands of Scotland. Starting in Tyndrom, it heads north before looping west, then south, and back to the start point. From the singletrack of the Bealach Horn to the rock slabs of Torridon, many sections demand sharp MTB skills and are connected by long, remote gravel sections where resupply options are few and far between. Combine that with weather conditions that can transition from glorious to diabolical in the blink of an eye.

So many uncontrollable factors mean there is no perfect bike for this race, so every bike lining up at the start is a reflection of a rider's strengths and weaknesses. With even the smallest detail having the potential to have massive effects during the race, I put a lot of thought into building the bike that I would race on the Highland Trail 550.

Hardtail vs full-suspension frame and some hard-wearing bearings

The first big decision was whether to choose a hardtail or a full-suspension bike. Although I think full-suspension has the potential to be faster due to the extra grip and comfort it affords, hardtails are still the dominating force on this route. With a background in mountain biking, I was confident I would have sufficient skills to pilot a hardtail down the most challenging technical terrain on the route. While I would sacrifice some comfort choosing a hardtail, it's offset by having more frame space for storage, so I wanted to find a frame with a high top tube that would help me make the most of it.

There aren’t many dedicated bikepacking framesets that also have a bit of XC performance baked in. When I saw the Gloria* All Terrain, it immediately caught my eye. Geometry is modern enough to be confident on singletrack without feeling like a handful on faster, flatter terrain. The high top tube opens up loads of real estate for a big frame bag, plus there is plenty of clearance for 2.4in tyres. Most comparable framesets are made from steel, but All Terrain is built from Grade 9 3Al-2.5V titanium butted tubing, saving some weight and easing the worries of abrasion damage that comes with strapping bags to a bike.

I run Enduro Bearings on my mountain bike and have been very impressed with the durability, requiring zero maintenance over the last three years. As this bike was likely to face a lot of riding in some inhospitable conditions and its fair share of river submersions, I specced an Enduro Bearing headset and bottom bracket to ensure that the handlebars and cranks would continue to spin smoothly.

Suspension and dropper post

Before I even started delving into the finer details of this build, I already knew exactly what suspension I wanted to run. Having already used Fox’s 32 Step Cast fork on several test bikes and on every ride, it has consistently impressed me with its performance. The silky smooth and immediately reactive action means it hoovers up trail vibrations on the long sections of gravel and double track that less sensitive forks might otherwise ignore. It's also claimed to be the lightest 100mm XC fork on the market, yet the chassis remains remarkably taut and precise when ploughing into technical terrain.

I tuned the suspension up a little differently from how I would for a normal cross-country ride. I set the fork up with a little less air pressure than Fox recommends for my weight. With long sections of gravel and rough double track, I wanted to enhance the small- to mid-bump plushness to stave off hand discomfort for as long as possible. The fork has a three-position handlebar adjustment too, so if I wanted to lock the fork out when climbing or needed a little more support when descending, it was available to me at a flick of the thumb.

To match the fork, it only made sense to also run a Fox dropper. To carry on the lightweight theme, I chose the Transfer SL with 125mm of travel. Ideally, I would have wanted more drop, but the minimum insertion depth of the frame stopped me from using the Transfer SL in its longest 150mm length. It’s worth noting that the Transfer SL has its limitations for bikepacking. It's one of the lightest dropper posts around with its mechanical internals, but the two-position design means the dropper can only be ridden either fully extended or fully down. That means it’s not compatible with a seatpack that mounts to the seatpost, which is essentially all of them. I'm not a big fan of seatpacks when riding off-road, though, so this wouldn't be an issue for me.

Fox recently released a dual lockout and dropper lever, although it was out of stock when I built my bike. Luckily, the separate lockout and dropper lever both play well with each other. I ran the lockout lever a little further inboard so that it cleared the dropper lever, and after a few hours of riding, the lever positions were second nature.

Keeping it mechanical

While I could have got my hands on one of the new Shimano MTB Di2 groupsets, I wanted to go full mechanical for peace of mind. I have never had an issue with electronic shifting and ridden several electronic groupsets in some really terrible conditions, but there is enough to think about in an ultra race without having to worry about more electronics and more batteries. Shimano’s XTR M9100 mechanical groupset is arguably the pinnacle of cable-actuated gear shifting, delivering smooth and crisp shifting throughout the ride.

Although Shimano’s own XTR crankset would have performed admirably, I instead had the opportunity to get my hands on something a little more special. I couldn’t say no to this Sturdy Cycles' 3D-printed titanium crankset that was looking for a good home.

These cranks are made to order and constructed from 6/4 titanium, plus the shot-blasted Titanium finish pairs beautifully with the titanium Gloria frame. Featuring a custom-machined titanium spindle to save more weight, they weigh in at 368g, saving around 100g compared to the Shimano XTR crankset.

Sturdy uses an 8-bolt SRAM direct mount system and has its own matching Titanium chainrings. Due to the last-minute addition of the cranks to the build, I sourced a Works Components 30T oval chainring.

To match the drivetrain, I went for Shimano XTR 2-pot callipers paired with a 180 front and 160mm rear XTR Ice-Tech rotors. The brakes are one of the few parts, in retrospect, I would consider changing. There were a couple of descents where I yearned for the extra power and modulation that would have been on offer had I specced a 4-pot XTR calliper up front. Otherwise, they were flawless throughout the ride. Even in the super-wet and gritty conditions, I managed to get around the full route without needing to change the stock sintered brakepads.

Wheels, tyres and whether to insert or not to insert

It's been a long time since I rode a MTB with an inner rim diameter narrower than 30mm, as this has become almost standard across all MTB disciplines. I opted to downsize my inner rim diameter because, although a narrower rim would reduce the tyre footprint and sacrifice a little traction, it should give the 2.4in wide Pirelli Scorpion RC tyres a slightly taller shape. I hoped this would give them the best chance of avoiding pinch punctures on the rocky terrain and square-edged drainage bars which litter the trails waiting to catch out tired riders.

I could have chosen to run an insert, and several HT550 veterans recommended I should. However, I felt that the added rolling resistance, weight and potential faff if I did puncture wasn’t worth it.

Black Inc’s Twenty Seven carbon wheelset fit the bill with a 27mm inner rim diameter, bladed spokes and ceramic bearings to ensure I was rolling along with maximum efficiency. I knew I would be strong on the descents, and despite not holding back, the Twenty Sevens were still running straight and true when I rolled into the finish. Not only that, but I didn't suffer a single puncture over the 900 km of racing, even with plenty of tired and clumsy line choices.

Finishing kit

The SQ Labs 311 FL-X Carbon 16 is pretty radical compared to the majority of mountain bike handlebars, but the 16-degree sweep is a shape that I have really enjoyed riding. I find the hand position very comfortable without limiting control, and there is a noticeable level of vibration-smoothing compliance too. The 311 FL-X is SQ Labs' cross-country specific handlebar, and I specced the low-rise 15mm bar, leaving it uncut at 740mm.

I wasn’t intending on running the Fizik Tempo Argo R3 saddle; it was the saddle that was close to hand when I was building the bike. I have previously done some big days on it, so after some test riding, I decided to use it for the race.

Bikepacking bags

Having the best bikepacking bags is almost as important as the bike spec. Being able to securely carry everything you need, especially when riding in the mountains, is vital. Rather than go into a full breakdown of everything I packed, here are the key items.

At the centre of the setup is a Straightcut Design framebag, which was custom-made for a previous bikepacking bike but conveniently fitted the Gloria too. It is a direct mount bag, so it needed a little bit of customisation to mount it to the bottle cage bolts of the new bike. In the bottom compartment of the frame bag, I stored all my tools and spares to keep the heaviest items low down. I used the top compartment to store my bivy bag and some food.

Tailfin kindly supplied the top tube bags and handlebar bag. The bolt-on handlebar mounting system clamps to the handlebar to provide a very secure platform. I chose the small flat-bar version, it has a 14.9L capacity, which was more than enough to swallow up my sleeping bag, mat, puffer jacket, spare bibsorts and some other bits and bobs. I really liked the four mesh front pockets too, which provided convenient storage for easy-to-reach snacks. The Bar Bag System also solved my light mounting conundrum, as I could use the built-in GoPro mount to attach my Exposure Maxx D light in the optimum position. This main light was supplemented with a helmet-mounted Exposure Zenith, which I used for technical trails at night.

I used two top tube bags with the front one storing my battery pack, enabling me to charge items on the go, and I kept toiletries in the rear bag.

With the frame bag, I was able to run a bottle mounted to the frame, which I used for carb mix, and I supplemented this with a hydration vest. I chose the Restrap Race Hydration Vest as it has a good amount of internal storage, a low profile and a good range of pockets built into the straps. This was also where I kept my waterproof jacket and trousers on the rare occasion I wasn’t wearing them.

The perfect setup

In the run-up to the HT550, Scotland saw a long spell of dry, warm weather, and I had originally intended a far more lightweight setup. It’s said that you pack your fears, and while I don’t regret everything I brought, the stormy weather report had me worried. Lack of experience with the course also encouraged me to stay on the safe side, as I didn’t want to find myself caught out in the mountains and having to scratch from the race due to poor kit choices. Had the weather forecast not been so grim, I may have been a bit braver.

With a few changes to my sleep system, I could have safely gone lighter without sacrificing comfort. Trimming down my sleep setup would have not only saved weight but also made the bike more balanced, as I could have reduced the size of my handlebar bag. This streamlined bag layout would have been considerably more aero, saving energy on some of the road and block headwind sections.

I finished in 4 days and 13 minutes. Could this have been enough to slip under my four-day goal? Quite likely, but my primary aim was to finish confidently rather than purely chasing the clock.

In a video posted to Instagram, Dutch cyclist Jan-Willem van Schip has issued an outburst against the UCI and its commissaires at the Tour of Hellas after he was booted from the race for an illegal position on the bike.

Speaking in Dutch, he opened with the phrase: "Not normal, I've been disqualified again," before arguing his case and complaining that he feels unwelcome in road cycling.

It's not Van Schip's first run-in with the authorities. The Dutchman has faced the wrath of commissaires and the UCI on multiple occasions, including when was removed from the Baloise Belgium Tour in 2021 for using unusual handlebars made by Dutch brand Speeco, and in 2023 when he was disqualified from Heistse Pijl after using a radical new handlebar set-up from Toot.

More recently, he was removed from the Tour of Holland for an apparently unapproved forward-leaning seatpost.

The exact reason for his latest disqualification appears to be the unauthorized way in which he holds his handlebars, supposedly breaking the forearms-on-handlebars rule.

His unorthodox handlebars, seen in the Instagram post above from a race last week, allow Van Schip to adopt an aerodynamic position, but he appears to fallen foul of the UCI's outlawing of the forearms as 'a point of support', even if his hands are still in contact with the bars.

Van Schip argues that "everyone does that and I actually always hold my shifter fully," before adding, "how do you measure this anyway?"

Paul Tabak, the owner of Van Schip's Azerion-Villa Valkenburg team, was reportedly in discussion with the UCI to appeal the decision after the race, but it was upheld. Van Schip did not start stage 2.

In his video, Van Schip pointed out that he'd recently raced the UCI-classified Ronde van Overijssel with the same handlebar set-up, without any action from the authorities.

"How can it be that I'm allowed to race the Ronde van Overijssel with this, while all the other riders [here at the Tour of Hellas - ed.] in the front group are allowed to just rest their arms on the handlebars, and not me?

"Its very painful. It's really not fun. The bike is completely legal, the seatpost is fine, but they still found a way to screw us over. It hurts a lot," he said, before later adding: "I don't really feel welcome in cycling."

He also invited the UCI to "have a good talk about it" so he can ask: "How do these rules work, what is actually allowed and what isn't?"

The Dutchman has already pondered a move to gravel, where the rules are more relaxed. Maybe that will now be considered more seriously.

Aptly summing up his mood, the video ended with the phrase "wat een kut sport," – "what a shitty sport."

Spotting new bikes at The Traka is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Simply ambling around the start paddock you’ll see an unreleased Ridley with monster tyres and a road-like aero package, or a prototype Canyon, but beyond the walls of the event one can easily spot the latest and greatest gravel tech just by keeping your eyes open around town in Girona.

Walking home on Thursday, flush from spotting a plethora of cool stuff for my upcoming tech gallery, I sat at a cafe with a frosty European lager for some editing when something caught my eye: a brand new Argon 18 gravel bike.

I shan't drop the rider into hot water, but they were kind enough to let me lean it up against a wall in an alley for five minutes while she chatted with a friend. We’ve had no details yet from Argon 18, despite asking nicely, so we will have to wait and see what the actual situation is, but it’s clear it’s ordering from the set menu for new gravel bikes, and drawing inspiration from the latest Nitrogen Pro road bike.

Factor has added another bike to its gravel range today in the form of the Sarana, which the brand calls a 'race endurance' model.

The Sarana joins the race-first Ostro gravel, and the Aluto all-rounder, but this is a bike that, in Factor's words, has been “built specifically for ultra-distance racing, and riders pushing the limit of modern gravel racing.”

Ultra gravel events appear to be growing in popularity; events like the Traka 360 are hugely popular now. Factor says the 'speed, duration and demands' of these events inform the engineering decisions behind the Sarana.

Ultra racer and Factor rider Rob Britton has had a major hand in the Sarana's design process, and according to the brand, his input on factors like fatigue and efficiency deep into a race has shaped the bike. In short, it appears this is a bike for the epic days, when you still need to go fast and be comfortable when you are on the limit.

This release also lets us finally put a name to the mystery suspension-equipped Factor gravel bike we spotted around a year ago at Unbound Gravel.

We will be on the lookout for the Sarana at the Traka this weekend, and have already spotted new gravel bikes from Ridley and Canyon at the event. We also have a Sarana on test for a full in-depth review to see how it deals with a wide range of gravel riding.

Plenty of riders are already competing in mammoth events on a range of gravel bikes, some off the shelf, some custom built, what makes the Sarana so well-suited to the task?

Factor says Sarana uses a carbon monocoque frame with a directional carbon fibre layup, which is tubed for “lateral stiffness and in-plane compliance.” The brand told me it had endeavoured to strike a blend between comfort, stability and performance.

Up front, there's the option of a rigid or suspension fork in the form of the RockShox Rudy unit with 30mm of travel, and the frame geometry is geared to accept both options. At the rear, Factor has employed 'leaf spring shaping' at the heavily dropped seatstays to boost compliance.

The front end of the bike has received some aero attention; the sculpted head tube is evidence of this, though there aren't really any major aero claims to go over from Factor. The head tube and front end have also been designed to integrate neatly with the frame storage bags that Factor has designed for the frame.

Numbers-wise, Factor claims a 18% reduction in “vibration amplitude compared to previous endurance baselines” as well as “zero structural drift in stiffness after 40 hours of continuous simulation” and stable steering and aero balance with loaded setups at 30-40kph. There isn't any more detailed info to further clarify these specific statements, though.

Spec-wise, the bike has 57mm or 2.2in tyre clearance, putting it right up there with some other very popular gravel machines right now. The brand told me it was designed with the now superseded Continental RaceKing tyres in mind, but the bike will ship with the new Dubnital models, which are very similar. The benefits of large-volume, low-pressure rubber on rough terrain are now obvious to most.

There's an external seatpost clamp and a 30.9mm round seatpost, which means riders can run a dropper post if they wish.

The frame is 1X compatible only, has a downtube storage hatch and bag, is UDH friendly and can accommodate up to a 52 tooth chainring, which will surely please the racers out there. The bottom bracket standard is T47a, and you will be able to run up to a 180mm disc rotor.

Factor says geometry has been a big part of the Sarana's design, quoting a size 56 bike sagged at 20% with a suspension fork, a stack of 592mm, and a reach of 410mm.

Geo has been designed to give responsive yet stable handling with a fork trail of 60mm, while the chainstay length of 425mm stays the same across each size. Seat tube angle is 73 degrees, while the head tube is 71.5 degrees with a bottom bracket drop of 80mm.

Factor says the offset, slightly sloping seat tube has added comfort, but also helped facilitate the required tyre clearance whilst keeping the chainstay length the same.

New Black Inc gravel wheels

Factor has also rolled out a new gravel wheelset at the same time as the Sarana in the form of the new Black Inc 46 wheelset.

The 46 wheels are built to be fast and robust. They are, as the name suggests, 46mm deep with a 27mm inner rim width and 33mm outer.

The wheels use bladed steel spokes and are built with brass spoke nipples for durability. Stainless steel bearings have also been used for this purpose.

Factor claims the freehub engagement mechanism, which uses a three-pawl freehub body and a 30-tooth engagement ring.

Retail price for the wheelset is relatively reasonable in today's day and age, $1,699 / £1649 / €2,049 per pair, and the wheels are available to buy separately.

Pricing and specs

The Sarana is available in two paint finishes: Cyan blue and Prismatic gold. The bike will also be available in 49/52/54/56 and size 58 options.

Four build options will be available for the bike, two will have a rigid fork and two a RockShox Rudy suspension model. The Sarana will also ship with a one-piece Black Inc integrated handlebar to keep things fast.

Rigid bikes:
Sarana - SRAM Red XPLR / Black Inc 46 wheels: $9,599 / £9,399 / €11,499
Sarana - SRAM Force XPLR / Black Inc 46 wheels: $7,899 / £7,699 / €9,499

Suspension bikes:
Sarana - SRAM Red XPLR / Black Inc 46 wheels: $10,199 / £9,499 / €12,199
Sarana - SRAM Force XPLR / Black Inc 46 wheels: $8,499 / £8,299 / €10,199

Frameset 'premium option' packages are also available in rigid and suspension fork-equipped variants.

Sarana: $4,699 / £4,599 / €5,599
Sarana + suspension: $5,299 / £5,199 / €6,399.

The Black Inc 46 wheelset will cost: $1,699 / £1649 / €2,049.

Things are hotting up at the Traka, and it looks like a bike that everyone in the gravel world has been wondering about for over a year is about to be officially released.

Senior Tech Writer Will Jones spotted what appeared to be a new Canyon Grail CFR in the pits at the Traka today.

The suspension fork equipped Grail CFR RIFT was possibly the worst-kept secret at last year's event, the fork being something of a visual giveaway. However, the bike's clearance remained at a rather conservative official 42mm (though riders are running it with slightly bigger tyres), and a lot of riders have been wondering when, not if, the Grail would receive an update in at least the tyre clearance department, and it seems the time has now come.

This bike is what we presume to be the new Canyon Grail CFR. The frame looks more aggressive and racier than the existing Grail, and the bike now has dropped seatstays and an interesting seat tube shape, presumably to facilitate an aero seatpost.

We spotted a bike fitted with 29x2.2 Schwalbe tyres, which confirms this is a new bike, and not the existing Grail or the recently released Endurace CFR, which has 35mm tyre clearance.

One bike in the pictures below has a piece of tape applied to the rear of the seattube, presumably hiding the model name, and there just might be some new Schwalbe gravel tyres to look at, too.

We have also spotted a new hyper-aggressive Ridley gravel bike today, as competitors ready their bikes for the weekend's racing.

The new gravel race bikes are starting to rear their heads at The Traka. Cyclingnews is on the ground at the race and we are already on the hunt for new and exciting gravel tech.

A new Ridley gravel bike caught our eye on Thursday. This one will be raced by Pieter Potters of the Strada Campina / Ridley Bikes team in the 360 race. It’s certainly a bike that we don’t recognise, and is clearly a very aero and aggressive model.

Details are scarce right now, but our man on the ground, Senior Tech Writer Will Jones, spoke with someone from Ridley and learned that this bike apparently provides a "single-digit aero gain vs the ASTR [Ridley's aero gravel race machine] but double-digit gains in rolling resistance".

Ridley’s gravel race bikes are the ASTR and Kanzo Fast. This machine looks far more aggressive than either of them, with a head tube that looks similar to the one found on the Noash Fast 3.0 aero road bike.

The 'RS2' logo on the headtube could point to this being an updated version of the ASTR RS model, but we don't know for sure right now. Either way, it's another indication of the direction of travel for gravel race bikes.

Aside from the very deep headtube, sculpted seat tube and aggressive, deep frame tube profiles, the bike was running Continental Dubnital 2.2" tyres, Zipp 303 XPLR wheels, which have a 32mm internal width and a mix and match SRAM Red XPLR gravel groupset, paired with an XX Eagle rear derailleur.

Stay tuned this weekend as we bring you all the best tech and race news from the Traka.

Tadej Pogačar raced in the prologue time trial at the Tour de Romandie today on a prototype Colnago time trial bike.

He rode the new machine to fifth place in the 3.2km test, finishing seven seconds behind stage winner Dorian Godon (Ineos Grenadiers).

According to Colnago, the world champion's new machine is a prototype TT2 model, which appears to be the successor to the current TT1 model, a bike that has been in the Colnago range for several years now.

Pogačar was spotted riding a mystery time trial bike in early February, and we speculated on what that bike could be at the time. It would appear it was an early, unbranded version of the TT2 bike which he has used today.

In February, we speculated that this new bike looked less aggressive overall than the TT1, with some less deep frame shapes, and with more regular dropped seatstays, compared to the very low stays on the TT1 that lined up with the integrated bottle cage.

The primary goal of the TT2 appears to have been to save weight, whilst maintaining or improving aerodynamic performance. Colnago says the TT1 was one of the most aero time trial bikes in the WorldTour, but wanted to save some weight. The brand also mentions the bike being made more user-friendly for amateur cyclists.

The TT2 frameset is claimed to be 550 grams lighter, and is said to achieve a two-watt saving at 50kph compared to the TT1. The brand says this was measured as a weighted average across yaw angles. In short, this bike is over half a kilo lighter, whilst being slightly more aerodynamic than the TT1. Surely music to the ears of pro riders and a certain Tour de France champion.

Colnago explained that this is currently a prototype of the TT2 and that the bike will be made available to the brand's dealer network this September.

Pogačar's time trials this year

Pogačar will ride a size small bike, and his own model in the images above is built up with a Dura-Ace Di2 groupset, Enve wheelset and Carbon-Ti aftermarket parts such as the large 1X aero chainring. One difference of note compared to his road bikes is the Fizik Aeris split nose triathlon saddle fitted to the bike.

The Slovenian superstar currently has at least four time trials to ride this year, not including any championships he might choose to ride. Today at the Tour of Romandie, one at the upcoming Tour de Suisse and two crucial ones at the Tour de France.

The Romandie prologue is very short, and the Tour de Suisse time trial is flat and fast; both are seemingly different beasts from the tests at the Tour de France, which include more climbing, with the Tour prologue including a new format which should create fireworks.

The goal to save weight on the TT2 is telling that weight at the top level is critical. If a rider of Pogačar's stature can find a half-kilogram weight saving on the right course, it could provide an advantage that will help him gain time on his rivals come July and in the future.

Pogačar famously chose to use a stripped-down road bike for last year's mountain time trial at the Tour de France, preferring a lighter drop bar bike to his time trial bike for the stage. Stage 16's ITT at this year's Tour includes the Côte de Larringes climb, a roughly 9km ascent at around a 4.3% average gradient. Perhaps this is where Pogačar's new weight saving will help him this July.

It’s safe to say Italy is the spiritual home of cycling, with legendary and drool-worthy brands like Bianchi, Colnago, Willier, and of course, Pinarello producing some of the best road bikes on the planet.

The Pinarello Dogma F holds a much-coveted spot in our road bike buying guide, and for roadies that won’t leave you much change from around $15,000. However, if you’re looking for a more manageable price point and that iconic Pinarello branding, then its Grevil gravel bike is currently carrying huge discounts at Competitive Cyclist.

Shop the Pinarello Grevil F with 35% off at Competitive Cyclist.

The Pinarello Grevil F5 GRX 610 and its sibling, the Grevil F7 GRX 820, both have 35% off. It takes the F5 down to just $2,875, from its MSRP of $4,400, and a saving of $1,525.

The F7 is down to $3,400 from its $5,200 MSRP, and is a huge saving of $1,800. So if you’re looking for one of the best gravel bikes that is now priced more like one of the best budget gravel bikes, at these reductions, the Pinarello Grevil F is more than worthy of your consideration.

Below, I’ve linked the deals available at Competitive Cyclist. Sizing is showing as available across the range of sizes from 50-60 on the F7, and 47-60 on the F5. Like all the best bike deals, these are only while stocks last.

For some deal sweetening extra savings, Competitive Cyclist also offers 10% Cashback when you join its Summit Club, and free shipping on orders over $150.

The Grevil F broke cover last year at Unbound Gravel, the world's premier gravel event, held in Emporia, Kansas. Cyclingnews' eagle-eyed Associate Editor Josh Croxton was on the ground in Emporia and spotted a handful of the brand's sponsored athletes on custom-painted versions of the Pinarello Grevil F.

Josh reported that rather than being an all-new model, the new Grevil F is an update to the existing model. Pinarello says the Grevil is the bike that you can ride from sunrise to sunset, in races, adventures and everything in between. The Grevil F has plenty going for it as a top gravel bike performer, but is also versatile for road and even winter training duties. At these prices, you’re also getting the stunning-looking Italian heritage of Pinarello, which is sure to turn heads at your local espresso hangout.

Both models feature the same carbon frame, which Pinarello claims offers a combination of aerodynamic gravel racing capability with a design built for speed and efficiency, and a balance of stiffness with vibration damping perfect for gravel racing, endurance events, and fast training days.

The more costly F7 has a T900 UD carbon construction, and the F5 gets the T700 UD carbon frame, with the same gravel-specific geometry, which shortens the reach and raises the stack, offering what they claim is a stable, powerful position that maintains handling precision over loose surfaces.

Both models also benefit from a MOST cockpit with TiCR integration, and a colour-matched aero carbon seatpost.

Elsewhere, the F7 comes with Shimano GRX 820 2x12 drivetrain, Fulcrum Rapid Red 500DB wheels and Maxxis Rambler tyres. The F5 has a Shimano GRX 610 2x12 drivetrain, and the same wheel and tyre combo.

The highlighted Pinarello deals are US only, but below you'll find the best prices on the Pinarello Grevil F from other retailers, relevant to your currency and location.

The Bespoked show has returned to London this year, bringing with it a selection of the best and most out-there bike tech and niche builds.

Alongside custom frames from niche bike builders, there are tech highlights such as the Zero Lag KOM hub made in the Peak District, Japanese thru-axles for any standard, and a cut-away Rohloff hub, showing exactly why it's not a good idea to pull one apart to see what's inside.

There were big tyre gravel bikes (obviously), and a 32-inch gravel bike on the Singular stand, perhaps a sign of things to come. Alongside those were steel and titanium road bikes from brands such as Quirk and Italian specialist builder Rauler.

There was even an apocalypse bike rally with Mad Max-style bikes to ride through the post-meltdown wilderness.

Kick back and enjoy our pick of the Bespoked show 2026 exhibits.

Last year, I reviewed the old Cervélo S5, admittedly in a lower tier than this top-spec Dura-Ace monster, but it left me a little taken aback. It was extremely fast, but it never felt like it. Often I’d come home from a ride and assume I was on a bad day, only to be greeted by endless PRs.

The new S5 is, as is so often the case with the best road bikes, labelled as ‘evolution not revolution’ compared to its predecessor. It’s lighter (surprise surprise), more aerodynamic (shocking), and more integrated thanks to a new one-piece cockpit. To find out if it’s better (spoiler alert: it is), I’ve put over 550km in on it so far, taking in some fast, flat loops, group rides, solo endeavours, and one memorably hilly day out with over 2,700m of elevation. The short answer is that it's very likely the best aero road bike, and therefore, for most situations, the best race bike out there right now.

Design and aesthetics

Yes, it looks like the old one. Yes, many such new bikes also resemble their predecessors, and in many cases it does somewhat annoy me that brands seem reluctant to totally overhaul their aero bikes to keep up with the pack.

However, given that the S5 has a history of being very aerodynamic, I can absolutely see why in this case the Cervélo designers just wanted to tweak things around the edges, and our own aero testing shows it to be one of the fastest bikes in the peloton, if not the outright fastest, depending on how you look at things.

The new cockpit, happily backwards compatible with the old S5, is probably where the biggest changes have been made. It’s now a single piece, slightly flared with the hoods a full 4cm narrower than the drops, and the crossbar bridging the Y-shaped gap is slimmed down, though still just about having enough material to hold a computer mount, though not without a proprietary mount or (in my case) drilling your posh K-Edge one to fit the new holes.

The new cockpit, along with little tweaks to the dropouts (the rear being UDH-friendly now) and the seatpost wedge, has resulted in a 6.3 watt saving over the old one, which is quite significant, though I would suggest almost all of these gains are down to the cockpit. Shorter cranks across all sizes, also allowing a lower BB, will have some small aero advantages too.

At the core of the machine though the frame remains basically unchanged in terms of its shape and geometry. The same instantly recognisable seat tube shrouding the rear wheel, the same slight cut out in the downtube. While most aero bikes looked pretty similar until things got all weird in 2025, the S5 remained unique looking, and while it’s not what I’d ever call beautiful, it has a purposeful functionality that softens the visuals. Maybe if it looked like it did but was actually really slow and never won any races I’d call it ugly, but it isn’t, and it has, so I won’t.

While the outer aesthetics are very similar to the old machine, the new S5 has been on a slight diet. More of a short juice cleanse than an Ozempic overhaul, but nevertheless the Cervélo engineers have stripped out a total of 124g from the package, primarily from the seatpost and cockpit, with the slightly deeper tube shapes at the front giving a small weight penalty initially before being offset by savings elsewhere.

The wheels and tyres have been upgraded compared to my previous test machine, ignoring the fact that this is also a Dura-Ace outfitted bike rather than second-tier SRAM. The tyres are the new 29c Vittoria Corsa Pros, designed ostensibly to work with this specific bike for Visma-Lease a Bike on their new Reserve 57/64 wheels. These are deeper than the old 52/63 setup, are claimed to weigh the same, and offer marketing words like ‘turbulent aero’. We haven’t tested them in the wind tunnel standalone, but we have tested the whole bike (in a 1x configuration) and swapped to a set of stock, very fast Enve wheels, and the S5 is faster with the Reserves it was designed with (a relief, I’m sure the designers will agree).

If you want an idea of how fast this bike is by the numbers then you can either read our labs test asking ‘what is the fastest bike in the world?’, where we did back to back testing of the planet’s greatest aero bikes, or our individual lab test write up of the Cervélo S5, but with this bike perhaps more than any other, more so than the Factor ONE simply because it’s less new and novel, it’s easy to distil it down to a single wattage figure. But as I found out when I reviewed the Felt Nexar, bikes that are good on paper don’t always make good bikes in the real world. In this case, however, the S5 is good on paper and very good in the real world too.

Performance

Good Lord, this thing is fast.

It’s not so much the speed of the thing that’s disconcerting, but the placid manner in which it is delivered. On my first ever ride on it, I hit 85kmh coming off the back of a classically steep British country descent, and I could have happily done the crossword. I actually think, rather than questioning whether I was as immortal as I was at 19, as I normally do when travelling above 70kmh, I was thinking about what I was going to have for my tea.

The perception of speed is a curious thing, and I think we tend to judge velocity mostly through vibrational feedback. Harsh bikes feel fast, despite mounting evidence in the world of tyres, at least that wider road tyres are faster because they’re smoother, but the S5 isn’t in any way plush or muted. It’s not like the Colnago V4Rs or the V5Rs my colleague, Josh, reviewed, where the languid feeling was a result of the geometry. It’s got short chainstays, a low bottom bracket, and a classic 73-degree head angle, but you do feel somewhat disconnected from the ride at times. Like with the old S5, I would often come home feeling like I was on a bad day to be presented with a massive slew of PRs on my Strava.

It does, I am happy to report, feel a little more alive than the old one. Cornering is a little more conscious than with true, flickable, handling-forward machines like the Scott Addict RC and the Pinarello Dogma F, but it holds a line with absolute confidence once you’ve pointed it in the right direction. I think part of this is down to the entire package being similarly stiff. Bits of the Colnago Y1Rs felt stiff, but bits of it very much didn’t, and it added up to an incoherent ride that felt unstable, but with the S5, the frame, wheels, bars, and the bayonet/steerer arrangement all feel identically stiff to the point it almost feels like the whole machine is a single piece. It’s quite pleasant, if a little unusual. The only similar feeling I’ve had is when testing an all-titanium (frame, forks, cranks, and cockpit) Sturdy a few years ago.

It’s not uncomfortable either. It’s no endurance bike, but I happily ticked off 100-mile rides without feeling like I’d been smashed to bits. So fast was it that I also logged my fastest ever 100km, ridden solo, which included an ascent of Cheddar Gorge, so anecdotally as well as by the numbers it’s an absolute rocket.

What I will say is that, while it didn’t feel quite as exciting as some bikes to ride, I was very much glad of the ride characteristics when throwing myself into fast group rides. It felt like there was more of a steady hand on the wheel, and I felt more comfortable sat millimetres from the tyre ahead of me on it than I would on other road bikes.

Climbing isn’t its forte, however. In my guise, the pro-level 54/40 chainset was offset helpfully by an 11-34 cassette, but when tackling the really steep roads around Bristol I did miss the easy acceleration of the Specialized Aethos 2 I’d just finished reviewing before this. On an ascent of Draycott, 2km at 11.3% with a monstrous middle section with 100m over 25%, I found myself weaving like a knackered domestique halfway up the Zoncolan. Realistically, though, you’re probably not considering buying an S5 as a hill climb machine, and on more sustained, seated climbs of 6% and under, it’s actually a lovely, purposeful climber. It's not all that light either. As ridden, with cages, Ultegra pedals and a K-edge computer mount bodged to fit, plus a good glug of goo in each tyre it tipped the scales at 7.98kg, but this only really troubled me on really steep ascents.

Normally I hate non-standard cockpits, and I didn’t much care for the old one, but I really liked this one. I’d have liked less flare – I think 2cm is excessive and to be honest I’d rather have none at all. I’d have liked a narrower option, but the long horizontal section to the drops parallel to the direction of travel remains for happy, whole-hand cruising, and the odd forward-trapezium of the crossbar makes a really good pace to hold your thumbs on long climbs if you aren’t going hell for leather in the hoods… just try not to think about them snapping off in a crash.

Where I really found it to shine was hard, but steady-state riding. You can chill out on it much more than you’d think, far more than on the hyper-aggressive Ridley Noah, but it still feels like a bit of a waste. With your head tucked down and chipping away it feels very efficient, and on shorter punchy rises it handles sprints well, but I think because everything is so stiff I actually missed a little bit of spring somewhere in these situations, purely from a sensations point of view, but this is being really, really picky. It didn’t make me want to ride until my eyeballs popped out every time like the Ridley, but I sort of did anyway without even noticing.

Like many chunky, deep-wheeled aero bikes it doesn’t accelerate from slow speeds with the darting immediacy of a lightweight, tipping the scales at 7.98kg as mentioned, but when you’re already going very fast the accelerations are a lot easier to come by, which is exactly what it was designed for.

All in all, it’s a tangible improvement over the old model, but it retains the same quirks under the hood. One final point in its favour is the cockpit adjustment, which so often bedevils almost every modern bike. I wanted an extra 10mm on the front end from the slammed setup that arrived for some recent lab testing, and with 3 bolts and about ten minutes, I adjusted the height without swearing more than about three times, without even launching a T-handle through the garage window. It’s not as easy as a classic bar and stem, but it’s so much better than most, and needs no cutting of anything.

Value

By the numbers, this is one of the best if not the best race bike in the world. My test bike had what I still consider the best groupset on, though I will admit that SRAM Red runs it bloody close nowadays. The wheels are very top-tier, the tyres are some of the best on the market. The saddle is decent, too, even though I swapped it out for something I really prefer.

None of this is let down by the on-road sensations either; don’t be put off by the serene ride characteristics. It’s not a negative, it’s not boring, it’s just a little surprising. There isn’t really anywhere I can see on this bike that isn’t absolutely top of the tree, and so I expect it to also garner top of the tree pricing: £12,000, or $14,350. Yeah, that’ll about do it.

This is megabucks. It’s $1,350 more than a Dura-Ace S-Works Tarmac, which is still for better or worse the benchmark all-rounder. Does this make it bad value? Honestly, I don’t think so. I’m not going to pretend it’s cheap, but it does a far better job of justifying its price tag than the Colnago Y1Rs, which rode worse and cost substantially more. It’s not a bargain, but at the end of the day, it’s by many metrics the best bike you can buy, so it was never going to be cheap.

Verdict

Aside from the surprisingly calm ride characteristics that are common with this and the previous model, this top-flight Cervélo S5 has almost nothing I can fault. It’s extremely aerodynamic, it handles well, better than the old one and while it doesn’t feel quite as lively as bikes I have truly loved riding, it’s extremely stable, corners with absolute confidence as long as you’re conscious of what you’re doing, and is blisteringly fast.

It’s no mountain goat, but with some lightweight wheels (and maybe some lower gears if you’re going really steep), it’d hold its own. It thrived on steady-state, hard efforts, and while it was perfectly happy soaking up sprints, it felt best seated. It’s stiff all over, which I think is why it feels different to many similarly pitched bikes.

If you want the best race bike possible, it’s very, very hard to look past the S5. There’s not really much more to say than that.

Frame stiffness, both in terms of lateral stiffness and vertical compliance, is an incredibly important consideration when it comes to engineering a bike frame. It is the special sauce that defines how well a bike rides.

So much so that when brands are designing their latest flagship race bikes, it's given the same importance as aerodynamics and weight. Some will chase new stiffness targets, but others will have these figures set in stone as immovable targets from the beginning, as they aim to retain the DNA of the platform while improving its performance elsewhere.

Despite this, it's something of a mysterious metric. Short of looking at a frame and assuming its deep tubes will make for a stiffer ride, there's no way of knowing exactly what you'll get.

But given that carbon fibre is anisotropic in nature, meaning its mechanical properties vary depending on the direction of the fibres, two visually identical frames could have completely opposing characteristics based on how the carbon has been laid into the mould.

So for most of us, we're reliant on either actually riding a bike in order to gauge its stiffness and compliance, or reading a review from someone who has. Even then, beyond subjective feeling and opinion, there's no straightforward metric to allow you to compare one bike to the next.

That, hopefully, is where we come in. Here, with the advent of Cyclingnews Labs empirical testing, were dedicated to giving our readers as much objective information as possible, decoding brands' marketing claims, and offering fair, unbiased tests to help you decide on the next best road bike for you.

We've spent more hours than I care to think of in the wind tunnel testing the aerodynamic efficiency of bikes, wheels, clothing and more. We've tested tyre rolling resistance too, and now it's time to turn to frame stiffness.

This will centre on two measurements, the torsional stiffness at the bottom bracket and the vertical stiffness at the saddle.

It's not a simple case of more bottom bracket stiffness is better, or more vertical compliance is better, but the information below will hopefully add clarity to an otherwise vague understanding of bike stiffness and provide another piece of the puzzle to help you buy the right bike.

What is stiffness and compliance?

It's common for bikes to launch with claims of being "laterally stiff" and "vertically compliant," but what does that actually mean?

Starting with 'laterally stiff', this refers to the frame’s resistance to side-to-side deflection at the bottom bracket shell when under the 'load' of the rider's pedalling force.

Given the pedals are positioned on either side of the bike – typically around 75mm from the centreline of the frame – when a rider applies force to the right pedal, the frame is not only pushed downwards, but also forced to flex to the left, and then vice versa when applying force to the left pedal.

The conventional theory is that more flex means less of that force is being transferred to the drivetrain - and in turn to the rear wheel - whereas a stiffer frame should, in theory, be more responsive under power. However, some argue that the flex is strain energy stored as the frame acts like a spring, and the energy is returned to the drivetrain as the frame springs back to the centreline later in the pedal stroke. The timing of this return is where things get more complicated, though.

It's generally accepted that more stiffness is better, but only to a point, and the tipping point is rider-dependent.

The term 'vertically compliant', meanwhile, refers to a bike's ability to absorb small bumps and vibrations from the road, in turn mitigating the energy dissipated as heat when a rider’s body is forced to absorb the bumps, which accelerates rider fatigue.

This can be mitigated somewhat by fitting wider tyres, but many brands will design compliance into the frame in a way that decouples it from the lateral stiffness. This may be achieved simply by taking advantage of carbon fibre's anisotropic nature, but dropped seatstays are a common road-smoothing inclusion, leaf spring tube shapes too, while more active tech such as Trek's IsoSpeed is slightly rarer.

How we're testing

Our new test protocol is designed to quantify brands' claims in a way that can be compared fairly and consistently.

Primarily, we want to allow readers to compare across brands, such as pitting the Colnago Y1Rs against the Cervélo S5; but also across models within a brand, such as the Specialized Tarmac SL8 against the Allez Sprint; and eventually even across genres, such as from road bikes to gravel bikes, although we've focused on road bikes for now.

Both tests are undertaken at the same facility at the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub, and are designed to match the setup for the ISO fatigue tests.

For both tests, a 'settling run' is performed to ensure everything is set up properly, such as ensuring the chain is secure on the chainring, the frame is settled into the jig correctly, any slippage in the seatpost can be identified, and box-fresh frames' fibres and resins are stressed.

Then, after a return to zero – well, actually past zero to -50Nm – each test proper is performed three times. If anomalous results are found, such as one of the three being wildly different to the others, the bike is removed, remounted, and retested three more times.

The figures we report below are the average of the three runs.

The details of each test are as follows.

Bottom bracket

To measure lateral stiffness, we remove the wheels and mount the bike via its thru axles to a fixed rig. A 'control' Shimano Ultegra crank is fitted to all bikes, the driveside crank arm positioned at 45°, and a load cell connected to a custom pedal spindle fitted to the driveside crank. A highly force resistant track chain is wrapped around the big chainring and connected to the rig to lock the crank in position.

A force is applied to the load cell, pulling the driveside pedal downwards. Throughout this, the lateral displacement of the bottom bracket is measured, in millimetres, as the force is slowly increased to 1100nm.

The resulting measurement is then given in newtons per millimetre (N/mm), effectively quantifying the number of newtons required to move the frame by each millimetre. The higher this number, the greater the frame's stiffness.

We then return the load cell to zero, repeat the process twice, and take an average of the three tests.

Seatpost

To measure vertical compliance, the same rig is used to fix the bike into place at the thru axles. The seatpost is set to height, the saddle removed, and a special mount fitted to the saddle clamp in place of the saddle.

Everything is torqued per the manufacturer's spec to avoid slippage, and the load cell is attached to the aforementioned saddle clamp mount. A force of 1000nm is then applied, pulling the seatpost vertically downwards.

Given that seat tubes are often around 74°, rather than vertical, the seatpost and frame will flex towards the rear. As the load builds, the displacement is measured, and as above, the result is given in newtons per millimetre (N/mm), quantifying the amount of force required to move the saddle by each millimetre.

Standardisations and controls

We ensure all bikes are built with fork and stem/cockpit fitted, and the necessary preload applied to the headset to ensure no undue movement in the system that could affect the results. Wheels are removed for fitting into the rig.

For the lateral stiffness test, each bike is tested with the same Shimano Ultegra FC-R8100 chainset, with 170mm crank arms.

For the vertical compliance test, the seatpost of each bike was set to a matching height, measuring 730mm between the bottom bracket centre and saddle rails centre.

To standardise the saddle position, we simply pushed the mount as far forward on the rails as possible (like a saddle being slammed forward). This left no ambiguity around the exact position across bikes and led to a 'worst case' score for each bike, since moving the mount further back would increase the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket and, in turn, the amount of flex you get. It is not valid to compare these figures to tests performed elsewhere, or even by other clients of Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub, since the seatpost height or lateral offset are unlikely to match.

Caveats

As ever, our data is simply a result of our day of testing using a set protocol, and not the final word. While we are confident in our data, different protocols will probably return different results.

Two identical bikes with different length seatposts would likely have different vertical compliance scores, since there'd be a different amount of material there to work against the force. Since nobody is cutting down their seatpost to improve comfort, we just run each bike as they are sold, rather than standardising seatpost length, as this is more representative of the bike you would end up with as a customer.

And similar to the above, a bike with a lower standover height would have more seatpost on show, and thus would likely be more compliant, all else being equal. Again, this translates to real-world use, so we've not tried to control it.

Given we're pulling the load vertically downwards, a steeper seat tube angle will technically be at a disadvantage compared to a slacker seat tube.

Matching the bottom bracket offset may have been a fairer test, but we didn't have a tool on hand that would measure this accurately enough, so we opted to control the saddle in relation to the clamp and quantify each bike in its least compliant setup. With more time, we'd do both, and perhaps also test each bike with the bracket slammed rearwards too, to get a min and max value, but we opted in this case to spend less time on each bike, testing more bikes in total, to get a bigger spread of the values we can expect to see in future tests.

The bikes

Unlike our wind tunnel tests in which we've generally tried to group bikes of a similar category together into each test – such as the superbike test, which focused on the bikes from the WorldTour, or the aero bike test, which looked at the fastest bikes on the market – here we've gone for a broader mix. We have lightweight and aero, budget and premium, steel, carbon and alloy too.

The reason for this is that you can't really quantify X stiffness = Y benefit in the same way that you can equate a CdA saving to a difference in watts required.

Comparing 10 super bikes in this context risked falling foul of selection bias, where the differences between each bike are amplified by the lack of the bigger picture; a baseline and a topline.

As it transpires, this decision actually gave us a bigger understanding of the subject matter than we expected. We presumed race bikes would be stiff, cheap bikes would be flexy, and steel bikes would set the baseline for comfort. We were wrong.

The bikes we tested are listed below, each in a size 56cm or nearest equivalent.

• Ridley Noah Fast 3.0
• Specialized Allez Sprint
• Giant TCR Advanced 0
• Cervelo S5
• Canyon Aeroad CFR
• Giant Contend SL Disc
• Trek Madone SLR Gen 8
• Van Rysel RCR F
• Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL8
• Specialized Aethos
• X-LAB AD9
• Colnago Y1Rs
• Fairlight Strael 4.0 (BB test only)
• Seka Spear RDC (BB test only)

Confidence interval

We ran the Specialized Aethos through both tests at the start of the day, in the middle of the day, and again at the end of the day to quantify a margin of error as we worked through the bikes and tested.

In the bottom bracket stiffness test, it resulted in an error margin of 0.48 N/mm in a dataset that ranged from 68.65 n/mm to 101.35, or 0.58% of the mean result.

In the seatpost stiffness test, we landed on an error margin of 34.67 N/mm, in a dataset that ranged from 632.89 N/mm to 1661.51 N/mm, or 3.9% of the mean result.

Results

Results: Bottom bracket

Starting with the bottom bracket test, the graph above shows each bike, ordered from least to most stiff. The minimum and maximum value generated by our confidence interval is overlaid in green, and the N/mm result is written within each respective bar.

Takeaways include the comparative extreme stiffness offered by the Ridley Noah Fast 3, and the high levels of flex found in the Seka Spear and Colnago Y1Rs.

The Fairlight Strael is the only steel bike we tested.

The Specialized Allez Sprint and Giant Contend SL1 were the only aluminium frames, but they have very different primary focuses. The Contend is aimed more at the entry-level market, while the Allez Sprint is aimed as a more budget-friendly race bike.

At first, we were surprised to see both the Specialized S-Works Tarmac (with higher-spec Fact 12r carbon) and Specialized Aethos (with Fact 10r carbon) so close in performance, but speaking to the brand afterwards, the brand outlined that the two were designed with very similar ride quality characteristics, which naturally includes a predetermined BB stiffness target.

What's more, a lower modulus carbon fibre doesn't mean less stiffness can be achieved, just that it takes more carbon to achieve it. This is why lower modulus frames often weigh more, despite coming out of the same mould.

Results: Seatpost

Next up, looking at the seatpost stiffness, the graph above again shows each bike ordered from least to most stiff.

Unfortunately, we overestimated the number of bikes we'd get through in the day, so the Seka and Fairlight didn't get tested.

The N/mm is once again listed within each respective bar, and the error margin is shown in green.

The exact N/mm figures here are around 10x higher than at the bottom bracket, simply because the amount of movement is smaller, and thus, the amount of force needed to achieve each millimetre of movement is greater.

We experienced a higher variance between our Aethos repeats in this test, for reasons unknown, and thus our error margin is greater.

That aside, there is still a clear difference between bikes, with the Van Rysel RCR-F at the stiffer end, with the Cervélo not far behind it. Meanwhile, the S-Works Tarmac SL8 and Aethos prop up the more comfortable end of the scale.

The Ridley's performance here is an interesting one. It is the stiffest in our bottom bracket test, but sits at the more supple end of the spectrum in terms of road comfort, perhaps landing a best of both worlds result.

Results: Combined

I maintain that the ideal stiffness at the bottom bracket, and the ideal compliance at the saddle, are both personal preferences based on rider weight, power output, riding style, and typical ride surface. I also believe that the preferences are independent of each other.

Regardless, I believe it's useful to see the data combined. If you know the charcteristics you want, bouncing between the two bar charts above to see how each bike stacks up in each test makes for a laborious process. This scatter plot should make that easier.

It highlights how opposing the ride characteristics of the Van Rysel RCR-F and the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 are, which is notable given they share a similar visual silhouette and were so close in our wind tunnel tests.

Conclusions

While it's difficult, impossible even, to quantify exactly how much faster, slower or more comfortable you'll be as a result of the data above, I think there's still a lot that can be gleaned.

The Ridley is the bike that stands out with good results in both, but only if you believe more is better when it comes to bottom bracket stiffness. It's not necessarily as simple as that, of course, hence the rider-dependent tipping point mentioned earlier.

The Giant Contend's bottom bracket stiffness was perhaps my biggest surprise result. Although my initial assumptions that I'd find a correlation between price and stiffness were wrong, I still think more testing is needed (and I have every intention of doing so). I don't know for sure, and Giant's engineers are yet to reply to my questions, but I suspect that the bike was designed more to hit a price point, and that the stiffness is more a byproduct of the materials used, not a target iterated towards.

TCR was a second-tier frame. Giant actively promotes the TCR range's stiffness to weight ratio, and this seems to affirm that. We tried to get a Propel too, but were hampered by customs blocking it for just long enough to miss our testing day.

I've ridden many of these bikes, but to take the Ridley as a clear example, I could have told you that it's incredibly stiff under power, yet still comfortable to ride. The data finally adds some objectivity to that perception, showing how it compares on a measurable scale.

In time, with a bigger database of bikes tested, we hope to build a bigger picture of where all bikes sit on this scale and how different models compare to their peers.

And when combined with our wind tunnel bike tests, I hope our empirical, objective and impartial testing can help our readers make the right choice when buying their next bike.

The longstanding partnership that has seen Soudal-QuickStep ride aboard Specialized bikes for the past two decades is reportedly set to end in 2027.

According to Daniel Benson's Cycling Substack, the team will switch to Merida Bikes, a brand that finds itself without a WorldTour team after its own agreement with Bahrain Victorious ended last season.

The move marks not only the end of a long-term connection between the American brand and the Belgian squad, but the end of its existing six-year agreement signed by Patrick Lefevre in 2021.

The partnership originally began with a 'bidding war' in 2006 when the team went under the guise of Quickstep-Innergetic.

In that first season together, Tom Boonen won the Tour de France green jersey aboard the team's Campagnolo-equipped Tarmac SL2 – complete with rim brakes, tubular tyres and a mechanical groupset.

The Belgian squad changed to Eddy Merckx Cycles equipment for the 2010 and 2011 seasons, but switched back to Specialized for the 2012 season, and that partnership has been maintained into 2026

In the years since, the two sides have worked together closely to further the successes of both parties. The team has had plenty of wins, with a Flanders-Roubaix double for Boonen in 2012; a dominant 2019 season in which Philip Gilbert won Paris-Roubaix and Julian Alaphilippe won Strade Bianche, Milan-San Remo and spent 14 days in yellow at the Tour de France; and, of course, Remco Evenepoel's rise to dominance, including his Vuelta a España win in 2022.

Meanwhile, riders have provided key feedback to help the development of the Specialized product catalogue. For example, Kasper Asgreen, who won the Tour of Flanders for the team in 2021, was heavily involved in developing the Tarmac SL7, feeding back on early iterations and prototypes.

Meanwhile, Remco Evenepoel – whose 'aero bullet' nickname is in large part thanks to the countless hours spent in the Specialized 'Win Tunnel' wind tunnel – was a key contributor to the design of the TT5 aero helmet, the Tarmac SL8 bike, and likely the SL9 too, which is strongly rumoured to be launched this year.

The Belgian also has his own line of lightweight 'Torch Remco' shoes, which were designed to help his attempts at competing for the Tour de France.

In one of the biggest transfers in recent times, however, Evenepoel moved to fellow Specialized-sponsored team, Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe, at the end of the 2025 season.

In recent years, Specialized has somewhat transitioned its focus toward individual athletes rather than teams. When Peter Sagan moved from Bora-Hansgrohe to TotalEnergies in 2022, for example, Specialized followed. And then again, when Demi Vollering moved from Team SD Worx Protime to FDJ Suez in 2025.

Whether or not the brand will look to retain its sponsorship of two men's WorldTour teams, and thus step into another squad, remains to be seen.

Both Soudal-QuickStep and Specialized have been approached for comment by Cyclingnews. Soudal-QuickStep have declined to comment, while Specialized is yet to respond.

Look has launched its new G85 Cezal gravel bike today, and I've managed to test ride one already. While gravel bikes are increasingly differentiated into gravel race and gravel adventure specialisms, Look aims to offer a generalist that can be used for everything from racing to gravel adventure rides and light bikepacking.

Can one bike span the range of modern gravel riding? I rode the G85 Cezal in Tuscany to try and find out.

All boxes ticked – except one

Look claims that its updated gravel geometry, with a 70-degree head tube and 50mm trail in size M, offers stable handling but without losing playfulness.

At the rear, the seat tube angle is 74 degrees, and the seatpost has a 5mm offset. Look claims these figures ensure maximum pedalling efficiency.

For comparative purposes, a size M frame has a 590mm stack and 380mm reach.

Look claims a 1,090g frame weight for the G85 Cezal’s carbon frame in size M, painted. It includes Look’s 3D Wave shape to the seat stays, which it claims offers up to 15% greater compliance than a straight stay.

Gravel tyres are trending ever wider, and Look has engineered the bike's clearance for a 50mm rear tyre into the new gravel bike, despite keeping the chainstay length down to 425mm. The fork has 57mm clearance, allowing a mullet tyre configuration with mismatched front and rear tyres.

There’s the usual array of mounting points, a UDH rear hanger, a T47 bottom bracket, and in-frame storage. A removable front mech hanger allows Look to sell two 1x and one 2x specs. You can swap in 650B wheels and fit a wireless dropper post too.

All of these features could be considered almost mandatory for a gravel bike launched today.

What Look doesn’t claim are any aero features. While adventure gravel riders probably don’t care, gravel race bikes often include aero frame features, as many brands claim that speeds in gravel races are now sufficient to warrant aerodynamic considerations.

Handling for tricky gravel race stretches

Despite the all-rounder design, Look claims that the G85 Cezal's handling gives it the edge over a dedicated gravel race bike in technical sections of courses.

Privateer gravel pro Russell Finsterwald won the Belgian Waffle Ride Arizona on the new bike’s first race outing.

Look claims that the bike’s handling contributed to him making up time in a technical singletrack section close to the finish, catching Andrew L’Esperance, who was four minutes ahead at one point, and beating him in a sprint to the line. Surely a nice marketing story, and a win is a win, but I was keen to see how the bike rode for myself.

The G85 Cezal’s geometry is suspension-adjusted, with a short head tube, and compatible with a suspension fork with up to 60mm travel. That’s more than a standard gravel fork, which now typically has 40mm travel, up from 30mm for first-generation gravel forks. Is this a sign of things to come?

Finsterwald says that he’s experimenting with different suspension vs rigid fork options, along with different tyre widths and mullet tyres to see which offers the best handling and performance in races. He reckons that 50mm is the sweet spot for tyre width, while 2.2in is good if there’s more singletrack on a race course. He also believes that the 50mm clearance will be an advantage if Unbound is muddy this year, which is probably something most would agree with.

If you do want to up the aero quotient for racing, Look has two different cockpits available for the bike, both with internal routing. The standard build has separate Deda bars and a Look stem and is compatible with extensions. For €790, you can upgrade to a one-piece Look aero bar/stem with a 200g claimed weight, and the G85 Cezal is also compatible with Look’s aero road bars.

Look G85 Cezal specs and prices

Prices for the G85 Cezal range from €6,490 with SRAM Force XPLR AXS and Fulcrum Soniq wheels, via €5,730 with 2x Shimano GRX 825 Di2 and Soniq wheels to €3,490 with 1x Shimano GRX 820 mechanical and Fulcrum Lite GR 2WF wheels.

The top two specs share the same Deda SuperZero Gravel alloy handlebars, Look x San Marco Shortfit Off-Road saddle on a carbon Look seatpost and Hutchinson Touareg 45mm tyres.

The entry spec keeps the bars and saddle, but subs in an alloy seatpost and Schwalbe G-One Perf 45mm tyres.

There’s also a frameset-only option, priced at €2,490.

Look G85 Cezal first ride

I test rode the Look G85 Cezal gravel bike in its top spec with SRAM Force XPLR AXS and Fulcrum Sharq wheels (replaced by Fulcrum Soniq Carbon wheels on the bike as sold) with 45mm Hutchinson Touareg tyres over two circuits of a gravel loop of just under 17km, with 365m of ascent at the launch event in Tuscany.

The bike was also fitted with Look’s new X-One G single-sided gravel bike pedals, designed to offer lower weight and a larger pedal platform than many gravel pedals.

The circuit started with a bang on a tarmac road that reared up to 20% gradients, rapidly gaining altitude as it snaked up into the hills to the west of Massa Marittima.

The Look’s reach is quite short, so it’s easy to get over the front wheel for extra leverage to haul yourself up the hills, while the bike’s modern features make for a planted ride feel.

There was a bit of squirm from the 45mm Hutchinson mm tyres run at around 30 psi / 2 bar when climbing on the road.

Stopping to check directions, I also experienced the downside of the single-sided pedals – at least when unfamiliar with the design – as I found it significantly more difficult to clip back in on the steep gradient than with a dual-sided pedal. After a few days using them, I was comfortable with clipping in, though, even on a hill.

I soon hit the first sections of gravel, but the climbing didn't stop, and the bike came into its own. Here, the tyres offered great grip and rolled over obstacles on the remaining gravel ascent. I could also feel the extra foot stability afforded by the wide pedal platform of the X-One G pedals, which did feel as if it allowed me to push more power.

The Look G85 Cezal felt stable and planted on the long, fast gravel descents back into the valley, too. The shortish reach, as mentioned, makes it easy to push your weight back behind the saddle on steeper sections, and the rear centre was short enough and agile enough to navigate around obstacles at speed.

My loop finished with a fast descent on tarmac back to the launch venue. Look seems to have judged its geometry well, as although short in reach, there’s enough to get into the drops and hunker down to reduce wind resistance without feeling cramped.

I did find I was spinning out in the 44x10t top gear offered by the SRAM Force XPLR AXS groupset, while I was defeated on the steepest slopes in the 46t lowest gear. Look does fit a 40-tooth chainring to the commercial spec, lowering the gearing a little more.

The single-sided X-One G pedals offer significantly greater foot stability than most double-sided designs and are lighter too. The wider platform does require that any knee-out riding you need to balance the bike has to come from the ankles, rather than from any significant tilt in the shoes’ soles, unlike pedals with a narrower platform.

If your gravel riding doesn’t involve much hike-a-bike, the pedals are a good alternative to traditional gravel designs, although if you need to clip out more frequently on your rides, a double-sided pedal such as Look’s original X-Track Race may still be a better option.

The Look G85 Cezal has a lot to offer the gravel rider, with plenty of versatility, the clearance for modern wide gravel tyres and reassuring handling.

Colnago has launched a brand new C Series bike today, in the form of the C72.

The Italian brand's C-Series bikes have a rich heritage which stretches back over decades, with countless big wins on the likes of the C40, 50, and Extreme-C, to name a few.

Colnago says its C Series bikes truly embody the brand, and that a new version will only be released when Colnago is ready. The existing C Series bike until this point has been the C68, released in 2022, with a follow-up 'All Road' model released in 2023.

Colnago bikes have long been revered, and the brand attracts passionate supporters. Founder Ernesto Colnago's sale of the brand at the age of 88 in 2020 to Chimaera Investments LLC drew murmurings from die-hard supporters that things no longer felt the same, but Colnago C Series bikes are still proudly manufactured in Italy, and the C72 uses a multi-piece carbon construction, which should be music to the ears of fans of the brand.

Colnago says the C72 is a 'fast bike, but not extreme'. If within the brand's range, the Y1RS is the bike to win a road race on (if you can afford it), then this is the performance road bike to simply enjoy.

Traditionally, carbon Colnago bikes meant lugs, and while the brand's top-tier Y1RS and V5RS race bikes now use a one-piece construction, the C72 uses a seven-piece construction, with sections of the frame being bonded together.

Colnago says production is intentionally limited to only 3,000 frames per year and quotes an unpainted weight of 895 grams for a size 485 bike.

Colnago says it has taken inspiration from automotive panel gap matching when it comes to it's multi piece frame construction. The joins of each frame are celebrated and easy to spot, which makes sense considering the legacy of the brand's carbon lugs.

The frame shape overall is simple and not overly aggressive or aerodynamic; there are no aero claims here. The undropped seatstays and pleasing frame lines seem to align with everything Colnago C series bikes are meant to be about.

Colnago has given the C72 a thorough update, and there are plenty of features that mean it is bang up to date.

Like many all-road machines, the bike has 35mm of tyre clearance, and the down tube features a down tube storage compartment that houses a neat bag and tools. Carbon integrated bottle cages act as the compartment door and look very neat. Purists will also be delighted to read that the bike uses a BSA 68 bottom bracket shell.

The bike's geometry has been changed too, leaning into a more 'endurance' fit. For example, a size 530 bike has a stack of 580mm and a reach of 394mm. Colnago says it's still racy, but a little more toward the comfort and endurance side of things, with revised rear-end frame shapes to improve compliance and shock absorption. The C72 has a steeper seat tube angle than the C68 and a higher stack, providing a more up-to-date and comfortable geometry.

Colnago has also designed a new handlebar for the bike, the CC.02 one-piece bar and step, which builds on the previous CC.01 bar. The brand says it is 215 grams lighter, with reduced reach for more stable handling and increased flare. Stems will be available in 90-130mm length and bar widths from 390-410mm.

In true Colnago fashion, there is another, even more exclusive C72. This is the C72 La Scala, a tribute to Teatro alla Scala, Milan's world-famous opera house.

The La Scala bike features red, gold and white paint in a tribute to the 'aesthetic codes' of La Scala. The bike will number just 72 pieces, and will be available to buy for €22,000.

The C72 will be available in seven sizes, as a frame kit which includes the frame, fork, headset and handlebars for €6,780 / £6,299 or in four full bike builds and in four colour options.

All models come with Pirelli P-Zero Race tyres, but in a 28mm size and arrive with bottle cages and a frame accessory bag.

The entry-level model is built with Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 and Fulcrum Sharq 57 wheels, costing €14,200 / £13,299.

A more pricy Dura-Ace build with Enve SES 4.5 wheels is available for €15,900 / £14,999.

There's, of course, a Campagnolo Super Record 13s model built with Bora WTO 45mm wheels for €15,400 / £14,999.

And the range topper is a SRAM Red AXS build with Enve SES 4.5 wheels coming in at €16,600 / £16,299.

With the dust settling on Paris-Roubaix and a long drive back through the tunnel to the UK for the Cyclingnews tech team, we've put our heads together to reflect on what we've learned.

Throughout our days on the ground in Northern France, we've spotted a host of new, old and unusual tech hacks as teams sought to smooth the cobbles of Hell.

Shimano's prototype pedals will be the talk of the race, or at least Alpecin-Fenix's decision to only put half of their team on them. But the most novel tech hack we spotted was the 'double bubble' wheel tech at Lidl Trek.

Some hacks worked better than others, while some will point to bigger trends that will no doubt carry forward into the rest of the season and, if not, at least on into the Spring Classics campaign of 2027.

32 is the new 28

Even a couple of years ago 32mm tyres were considered quite wide for the rough cobbles of Paris-Roubaix. Most road bikes couldn't handle them, at least not with any real clearance. Now, with the latest generation of aero bikes being able to handle 32c tyres with relative ease, almost all teams were using this size, to the point that the ubiquity of 32mm tyres was reminiscent of the days of everyone running 28mm tyres with the occasional 30mm as this was what most rim brakes would allow.

The UCI was out in force with a new tool to check nobody was running anything too wide (as a proxy for tyre height, oddly), and while Tadej Pogacar was using 35mm tyres that plumped up to a value noticeably wider, nobody was exceeding 35mm in stated tyre width at least.

Tyre clearance is advisory when you don't buy your frames

Tadej Pogačar certainly led the big tyre brigade, with his front tyre barely having enough room for a cigarette paper between rubber and carbon, but he wasn't alone in trying to eke out every last millimetre of clearance.

Decathlon CMA CGM also had 35mm front tyres fitted, and like UAE, they also fitted a smaller 32mm rear; the back end of a bike flexes a lot more than the front, and so tyre rub is more of a risk. Even so, there were plenty of frames that were pushing it to the limit, but teams know that Roubaix bikes get battered.

A great many had battle scars on them already before the start of the race, indicating that they are probably second or third bikes for the key riders, or even their training bikes.

Shimano has some catching up to do

The difference between the SRAM teams and the Shimano teams was starker than ever this year. 1x makes total sense for Roubaix, and while SRAM bikes could easily be set up with a neat, well thought out 1x setup, perhaps with a hacked derailleur to allow the use of a smaller road block for those using XPLR, Shimano teams were either using 2x and taking the risk of more frequent chain drops, or cobble together a mish-mash of aftermarket chainrings and gravel or MTB parts.

It's not so much that it's ugly or unorthodox, though it's certainly exciting to see from a tech perspective. It just feels like SRAM is ahead of the game in terms of making life easy.

I'm totally sure the Shimano system works perfectly well, even though it isn't officially sanctioned, but it creates a perception that reflects badly by comparison. With new Dura-Ace being teased by some new (and potentially disastrous) prototypes, there's scope for a big catch-up, but there needs to be a 1x option now.

Sponsors don't count at roubaix

Aside from the off-script drivetrains that Shimano teams were using there were several other noteworthy sponsor incorrect incidents that I spotted. Picnic and Jayco were both using Vittoria Corsa Pro tyres, despite being sponsored by Michelin and Cadex, respectively.

The former team’s mechanics used up what must have been several Sharpies to try and save their sponsor's blushes (unsuccessfully, I might add; the giant black rectangles do rather draw the eye), while the latter team was quite up front about it.

In any case, it seems like there's a good case to be made that if you're going to upset the sponsors at any race, it may as well be at Roubaix.

Whatever you do, you can't cobble-proof a bike

I'm not sure there were any more punctures than normal this year, but it certainly seemed that there were more unfortunate tyre disasters affecting the big names than in previous editions. Mathieu van Der Poel, Wout van Aert, Filippo Ganna, and Mads Pedersen all suffered flats, as did Tadej Pogačar, excitingly resulting in him having to use a neutral service bike for a time.

While big tyres might help, as may high-tech double-valve tyre safety systems, it seemed like the cobble gods struck down those with seemingly cobble-proof setups like Pogačar and those with pretty stock builds like Van Aert and Van der Poel with an even hand. There may be some who came away yesterday thinking that Van der Poel should have raced the new Endurace, but I am not in that camp.

He's won on the Aeroad three times, and there's nothing to suggest that if he were aboard the Endurace, he wouldn't have ended up having the same outcome.

Don't try something new on the biggest race of the year

There's a reason we head out to the Critérium du Dauphiné every year; teams don't want to use brand new equipment at the Tour de France, so they road test it at earlier, less important races first. Alpecin’s pedal disaster was a perfect storm of prototype parts not playing well with existing systems, and could easily have been avoided.

Perhaps it's the clarity of hindsight, and there's every likelihood that the team were told the pedals were compatible with what is likely a new cleat system, but why would you take the chance of having your key domestique running a different rider-to-bike interface at the biggest one-day race of the year?

Franziska Koch sprinted to victory at the end of Paris-Roubaix Femmes yesterday, fending off a two-on-one assault from no less than Marianne Vos and Pauline Ferrand-Prévot.

The German national road race champion did so aboard her team-issued FDJ United-Suez Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL8 race bike, and I took a look at the Roubaix winning machine as Koch gave her a winner's press interview post-race.

It was a fairly stock setup for Koch, nothing too crazy or unusual, but with some interesting details, such as Roval's fastest wheels, and a nice 1X aero chainring from British brand Drag2Zero, which you can look at below.

What made it for me was the personal message Koch had applied to the tops of her handlebars before the race, which I saw on several of the women's machines. Her reminder to herself seemed to pay off, resulting in the biggest win of her career to date.

It was a bright, sunny morning at the start of the sixth edition of Paris-Roubaix Femmes, though there was still a chill in the shade as the women's team buses arrived in Denain.

Paris-Roubaix Femmes covered 143km with 33.7km of cobblestones, including two five-star sectors: Mons-en-Pévèle and the Carrefour de l'Arbre, but no Forest of Arenberg.

The start paddock was a relaxed affair. Teams racked bikes in the morning sun, and fans could get close to their favourite riders, UAE Team-ADQ staff even hosted a Domino's pizza party on the hood of one of their team cars.

I was there on tech hunting duty, and there was plenty to spot amongst the women's teams, mirroring the men's Paris-Roubaix tech gallery published by my colleague Will.

Highlights ranged from brand new gravel wheels to dual-headed tyre systems. I even spotted some gravel tyres, as well as some cool aftermarket parts I hadn't seen before.

A standout from the women's bikes were several fun personal stem notes they had added, including the race winner, Franziska Koch.

Mathieu van der Poel's double puncture in the Forest of Arenberg will be the mechanical catastrophe he remembers for the rest of his life.

It should have been a straightforward swap to his teammate Jasper Philipsen's bike and a return to the front group, where he could fight for a record fourth consecutive Paris-Roubaix title.

But it turned into the surreal scene of the Dutchman walking back down the Forest of Arenberg, against the flow of riders, to collect his own bike, because he couldn't clip into his Belgian teammate's pedals.

On camera, the walk appeared calm, cool and composed, but maybe there was also a hint of resignation in the moment, maybe anger too. Save for the emotional scenes of Wout van Aert's victory, these images will define the 2026 Men's Paris-Roubaix.

Luckily for Van der Poel, his young teammate Tibor Del Grosso had worked out the issue unfolding. He had a cool enough head to spot his leader's bike lying in the grass, stop, and quickly begin swapping his own wheel to Van der Poel's then-abandoned machine.

By the time Van der Poel had returned from his 50-metre trip up the road, his bike was back to a rideable state, but over a minute and a half had been ceded to his rivals.

Van der Poel then punctured again shortly after, while still on the Arenberg, but the team car was closer at hand on this occasion, and the Dutchman swapped bikes in a more straightforward exchange.

By the time he exited the Trench, he was almost two minutes behind Van Aert, Pogačar, et al.

The following 90km of the race were spent chasing. Van der Poel found himself in the second group on the road. In fact, much of his time was spent on the front of said group. And he eventually pulled it back to within 15 seconds of the leaders.

Ultimately, he sprinted into 4th, just 15 seconds behind Van Aert and Pogačar, with Jasper Stuyven nabbing 3rd.

Why couldn't he clip in?

The Alpecin-Premier Tech team are sponsored by Shimano, and all riders use Shimano's Dura-Ace pedals, but the problem arose because Philipsen, along with Florian Sénéchal and Jonas Rickaert, were using a new prototype pedal. In the aftermath of the race, Alpecin-Premier Tech's mechanics confirmed to Cyclingnews that the two systems use different cleats.

In a race as chaotic as Paris-Roubaix, where team cars are rarely nearby because of the narrow roads and stretched-out peloton, swapping to a teammate's bike is often the fastest way to get going again, and can be the difference between a quick return to racing and a race-ending long wait for support.

Christophe Roodhoft takes the blame

Importantly, the pedals themselves aren't to blame for any of this, but Alpecin-Premier Tech's decision to put half the team on one pedal and the other half on another.

It's impossible to know how the race would have played out in different circumstances, nor indeed if Van der Poel would have been able to outsprint Van Aert in the Roubaix Velodrome, but the delay on the Arenberg absolutely cost Van der Poel the opportunity to fight for the win.

Speaking exclusively to Cyclingnews, a team mechanic explained that the pedals should have been compatible, and that Philipsen swapped bikes with Planckaert at Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne in February.

"It should work, hey. But the Arenberg is not the same as Kuurne," he said.

Meanwhile, Christophe Roodhoft spoke with assembled media.

"They fit, but it's not the same as normal," he explained, confirming the cleats are different.

"But it's done now. I can't undo it. I should have thought of it, but I never imagined it would all come together in such a crucial way.

"Right now, I think it was very stupid of me. That sounds harsh. But I don't understand how I didn't think of it. It's more unlikely than winning the lottery, all of it falling together like that."

He also explained that Del Grosso had already punctured at the time, but fortunately for Van der Poel, it was his rear. He was attempting to ride on, but saw his leader's abandoned bike and sprung into action.

Get unlimited access to our unrivalled 2026 Spring Classics coverage with a Cyclingnews subscription. We'll bring you breaking news, reports, and analysis from some of the biggest races on the calendar, including Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix and the Tour of Flanders. Find out more.

At the start of the men's Paris-Roubaix in Compiègne, the UCI was spotted with yet another tool to ensure the riders' bikes stay within its equipment rules.

It's a small, 3D-printed hand-held unit that commissaires were seen slotting over riders' tyres, seemingly to check their size.

At first glance, it appears very similar to the tool used at cyclo-cross races to check racers' tyres don't exceed the enforced width limit of 33mm.

But in road racing, there isn't a width limit per se.

There is, however, a rule limiting the maximum diameter of the wheel-tyre system, which means by proxy, given a wider tyre is also taller, a limit that works out at approximately 39mm. It does depend on rim width, though.

Checking the total diameter of a wheel tyre system at the buses at the start of a WorldTour race would likely be a much more time-consuming process, which would make it impossibly difficult to do across 25 teams quickly.

Given that road wheels are all made to an equal diameter of 622mm, and the total system is simply this plus the tyre top and bottom, it's a logical way to measure the total diameter more easily by proxy.

Cyclingnews understands this is what's being measured by the commissaires, although it's unclear whether the tool is measuring the tyre height itself, or simply using a nominal width (perhaps 40mm) as a proxy for an illegal height.

Witnessing the checks in action, Cyclingnews tech reporter Will Jones said the commissaires didn't appear to be checking diameter at all. "They just popped it onto the tyre and then, if it didn't get stuck, moved onto the next bike," he said.

Paris-Roubaix is likely the only race we'll see this tool in action each year. At most road races, teams will run tyres between 28 and 30mm, but the boneshaking nature of the Roubaix cobbles means teams are motivated to go wider, and push up against this limit.

When we caught up with Tadej Pogačar's bike ahead of the race, we spotted a 35mm tyre at the front that came up far wider, in one of a horde of tech updates as he 'threw the kitchen sink' at his setup to chase his third monument of the season.