The Sigma Sports Warehouse Clearance landed in my inbox this week, which highlighted some of the best cycling deals they had to offer.

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

Shop the Sigma Sports Warehouse Sale.

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

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

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

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

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

The UCI Road World Championships always brings a host of announcements from the governing body, whether they be locations of coming championships, calendar announcements or new technical regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I first spotted the new Factor Elara at The Traka this year, it left me quite taken aback. Road bike design in recent years has gone rather wild, with the likes of the now relatively conservative Ridley Noah giving way to the likes of the Colnago Y1Rs and Factor’s own ONE, but gravel bikes, even gravel race bikes, until very recently had remained ‘normal’, for want of a better word.

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

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

Design and aesthetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geometry

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

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

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

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Factor Elara as a road bike

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

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

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

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

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

Value

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

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

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

Verdict

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

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

Marlen Reusser and Zoe Backstedt raced to 1st and 2nd place in the Women’s Elite Individual Time Trial World Championship on Sunday, both aboard unreleased Canyon time trial bikes - the all-new Canyon Speedmax CFR - which set tongues wagging online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developing a new Speedmax

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much faster is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canyon has launched a brand new edition of its Grail gravel bike today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 3rd generation Canyon Grail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aero testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Features and geometry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial riding impressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specs and pricing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Britain has finalised its squads for the upcoming UCI Road World Championships, where Tom Pidcock, Zoe Bäckstedt, and Cat Ferguson will lead the charge for rainbow jerseys in Montréal, Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Britain's squad in full

Elite Men 

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

Elite Women  

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

U23 Men  

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

U23 Women  

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

Junior Men  

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

Junior Women  

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

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

When was the last time a new bike launched with less tyre clearance than its predecessor? That's one of today's headlines with the launch of the new Enve Melee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The protocol

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

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

We test every bike in three ways:

1. Bike only:

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

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

2. With a rider:

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

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

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

3. Bike only, control wheels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results

Bike only

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

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

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

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

With rider

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

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

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

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

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

Control wheels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are all used to professional road cycling, where marginal gains still mean shaving grams, chasing aero numbers in a wind tunnel, and hoping a new skinsuit saves half a watt. Don't get me wrong, as a lifelong bike nerd, I love all the latest WorldTour tech, but for me there's another branch of bike racing that trumps it.

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

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

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

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

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

Weight in the wrong place, on purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data acquisition, not guesswork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuned mass dampers: Borrowed physics, different frequency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frame compliance as a tuning variable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When flying down a mountain, brakes matter

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

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

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

Why this matters more than it gets credit for

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

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

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

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

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

While The Traka was many months ago now, it’s still fresh in my head thanks to the slew of unreleased bikes that were spotted on that dusty and incredibly pollen-heavy Gironese long weekend.

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

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

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

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

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

Frame and geometry

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

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

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

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

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

Aero claims and system weights

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

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

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

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

New gravel wheels

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

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

New cockpit

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

Price

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

First impressions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not difficult to work out how the Factor Elara came into existence. Its super-wide fork is uncannily similar to the brand's aero road hotshot, the ONE, and from that point backwards through the frame, it's a clear shot at the best gravel race bikes on the market, with the design straight out of the modern gravel race bike playbook as a combination of aero, big tyre clearance, and racy geometry.

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

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

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

Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few quick caveats and disclaimers

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

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

And with all that said, we're aware that aero data is only one piece of the puzzle of defining whether a bike is good or bad. Weight, tyre clearance, comfort, price, serviceability, reliability, and brand aftercare are just some of the other factors (no pun intended) to consider when buying, all coupled with the purpose and type of riding you plan on doing.

Results

I'll get stuck right in with the headline result: The Factor Elara is the most aerodynamic gravel bike we've ever tested, by a pretty significant margin, in both of our bike only tests, and it's on the podium in our 'with rider' test too.

The coefficient of drag at each of the seven yaw angles, for the three tests, looks like this:

I appreciate that's not the most visually useful graph, since the with-rider test and the two bike-only tests are quite far apart, but if you're nerdy enough to care about the specific values, you can hover over and you'll get to see the exact CdA at each yaw point. Otherwise, keep scrollin', as I've already done the calculations that help to show what that means.

Using an average of those seven points, weighted according to the methods set out by Nathan Barry's 2018 paper – A New Method for Analysing the Effect of Environmental Wind on Real World Aerodynamic Performance in Cycling – I have solved for watts using the following equation.

I did this at two speeds. Firstly at 35km/h, as this is the wind speed we tested at. Then again at 40km/h, so we can compare it against the road bikes we've tested too.

The point of this is to see how much energy (in watts) is required to overcome the aerodynamic drag (aka, the wind) in an average real-world riding scenario. If Bike A requires less energy than Bike B, we can deduce that assuming all else is equal (tyre drag, weight, drivetrain friction, etc), then you will be faster on Bike A for the same amount of effort.

And for context, when comparing aerodynamic drag in watts, the differences between bikes will shrink at slower speeds; if there's five watts between bikes at 35km/h, it'll be around three watts at 30km/h, and two watts at 25km/h. This is because power grows to the cube of speed (as shown in the equation above).

It goes the other way too. For a fun example, if something is a mere two watts better off at 25km/h, it's not 20 watts better at 250km/h, it's actually 2000 watts better! This is because you're increasing the speed by 10x, so you need to increase the watts by 10 to the power of three, or 1000! Good luck riding a bike at 250km/h though.

Sorry, I promised not to bore you half to sleep… shall we look at the results in detail?

With its stock wheelset - the Black Inc Sixty Four Gravel - shod with the 45mm Pirelli Cinturato Gravel RH tyre, and in the 'bike only' test, the Factor Elara is 9.64 watts more aerodynamic than our baseline bike (an old Trek Emonda ALR road bike that stays unchanged between all tests).

As a more useful comparison, that's 2.97 watts better (at 35km/h) than the next most aero gravel bike we've tested, Argon 18's Anti Matter. And compared to the least aerodynamic gravel bike we've tested, the Lauf Seigla (with round bars and external cables), it offers a huge 22.38 watt gain.

The results with a rider (me) atop the bike place the Elara in third place behind the S-Works Crux 5 and the Wilier Rave SLR ID2.

It's important to note that adding a rider into the equation reduces the accuracy of the test (since the rider can't hold a perfectly still position). We've calculated an error margin of 2.8 watts on the day, and with that taken into account, the Elara can still lay claim to top spot, even if it wasn't the outright most aerodynamic in the raw data.

It's also worth adding that the Elara is a heavier bike than the Crux 5, but I've intentionally not quoted the weights because the Elara we tested here was a SRAM Force-equipped model, versus the SRAM Red equipped Crux.

And in our third test, which swaps out the Black Inc wheels for a pair of 'control' wheels that lets us see how the frames alone compare, the Elara is on top once again. This time with a slightly smaller margin. This essentially tells us that the frame alone is the fastest of all that we've tested, but that the Black Inc wheels are pulling their weight in making the bike faster too.

In fact, when you look at how each bike tests with their own wheels against the Enve wheels, the Factor Elara was affected the least. There was a 1.79 watt improvement when switching wheels (and, remember, we've swapped tyres too) which is the smallest gain of all the bikes we've tested.

Compared to road bikes

Since we test all bikes against our baseline Trek Emonda, we can also see how the Factor Elara stands up against the road bikes we've tested too, including the mega-aero Factor One, which is the fastest bike we've ever tested.

It won't be that fast, let's not get excited, but it's an interesting comparison nonetheless. Given the Elara's aggressive position, we can gauge if it could hold its own as a one-bike-does-everything solution.

Out of context, the graph above makes the Elara look quite poor, but remember, it's the fastest gravel bike we've tested, and we've tested a lot more road bikes than gravel bikes to date.

Importantly, it comes in just 10.45w slower than the Look Blade 795 RS we tested in 2024. That's really impressive considering the Elara was tested with 45mm knobbly gravel tyres, versus the Look's 25mm road tyres.

If we were to test both with a 32mm road tyre (which, to prevent lawyers coming after me, wouldn't be ETRTO compliant given the width of the Black Inc wheels), I imagine that deficit would mostly (if not entirely) disappear. Next time we're at the tunnel, I'll figure out a way to test this theory.

And finally, with the rider on the bike, that deficit grows to 20.06w between the Elara and the slowest modern road bike – the Cinelli Aeroscoop. However, this is because the position of the gravel bikes is different to the road bikes, putting the rider in a more upright (and thus, less aerodynamic) position, so there's more rider drag in the equation.

Compared to Factor's ONE aero bike, we're looking at a deficit of 33.99 watts. However, if we were to roadify the position of the Elara to match that of the ONE as closely as possible, we'd be able to reduce that gap. Exactly how much by, though, is unknown.

Conclusion

Based on the spec sheet and our wind tunnel test results, it's safe to conclude that the Factor Elara is a best-in-class gravel race bike at the time of its launch. It's the most aerodynamic gravel bike we've tested in both bike only tests, and can lay claim to top spot with a rider, too. Meanwhile, the clearance is rated for 57mm tyres (according to the brand) and the wheels are bang up to date with the gravel race trend, thanks to their 64mm depth and 30mm internal width.

As mentioned up top, my colleagye Will has the bike in for testing. He's penned his early impressions in our Factor Elara launch story, but will wrap up the review in the next couple of weeks, so we can see how the aero data translates to the real world, and get his perspective on stiffness, comfort, and what it's like to live with. You can expect his in-depth write up, followed shortly thereafter by a video review, which will go live for Cyclingnews subscribers ahead for early access, before later going onto the new Cyclingnews Tech YouTube channel.

Give that a follow, if you're not already, and we'll see you next Thursday for more wind tunnel test results of another new bike that I'm afraid I can't name right now.

Scott has launched a new version of the Addict gravel bike today, and unlike some of the recent gravel bike launches such as the Ridley Kanzo Fast, it isn't a bike that prioritises all-out speed and aero performance.

Instead, Scott seems to have prioritised comfort and user-friendliness. Perhaps the brand foresees a turning point where aero gravel bikes simply become too much for regular riders.

The last Addict gravel arrived in 2021, and a lot has changed in the gravel world in that time. The new Addict, as you might expect, has gained boosted tyre clearance, but the brand says the bike is "designed around what matters most: comfort that lasts, stable handling on varied surfaces, and the versatility to carry what you need."

There's up-to-date 57mm tyre clearance, a big increase over the old 45mm number, which a lot of best gravel bikes are getting now. Revised geometry, frame layup options, a new gravel-specific cockpit and some neat tool and bag options.

The race-oriented 'RC' version of the Addict Gravel will also be discontinued going forward. The brand told us the frame stiffness development of the new Addict Gravel builds directly on the work done for the recently launched Addict and Addict RC road models.

A more comfortable, user friendly platform

Scott claims front-end compliance has been increased by 30% for the new bike. The fork leg design, smaller fork steerer and a new handlebar all contribute to this. Compliance means comfort, and more comfort on off-road terrain should reduce fatigue and help riders go faster.

At the back, compliance is said to be up by 60%; the seat tube has been shortened, which means more seatpost to flex and improve comfort. The brand also says the dropped seat stays flexing also helps here.

Geometry has also changed to improve comfort and handling across the seven available sizes. The stack is 10mm higher, and reach is 10mm longer. This is offset by a 10mm shorter reach in the cockpit or handlebar.

The BB is lower, and the fork rake has been increased, in part to accommodate the larger tyre clearance. The front centre is now longer, placing more front wheel out in front of the rider. Chainstay length is the same as the previous generation bike.

In the name of comfort, overall stiffness has been reduced by less than 5% to improve traction and compliance, according to Scott. The brand stresses that the ride will still be precise and efficient but with a more forgiving ride quality.

A new gravel cockpit has also been developed for the bike. The bar has an increased forward sweep that the brand says will improve wrist clearance. Reach has been reduced, as mentioned, and the bar has a 'neutral shifter position'; this means that due to the shape of the bar, the brake levers will remain in line with the drops themselves, not sitting out at an angle due to the bar's flare, which the brand says will provide more control.

Tools and accesories

Scott appears to have implemented some handy features and accesories into the Addict Gravel.

Like a lot of Canyon bikes now, the majority of adjustments can be made with one T25 Torx key.

Tools have also been integrated into either side of the bar drops. One side houses a tubeless repair kit, whilst the other contains the T25 Torx key needed to make hardware adjustments.

There's also downtube storage, and the brand's 'Save the day' toolkit contains a tube, levers and a mini pump. There's also a dedicated top tube storage bag to provide additional space for gels, etc. Mounts on the inside of each fork leg also allow for additional water bottle storage if needed.

Finally, small parts from the Addict range are cross-compatible compatable opening up more cockpit and stem options and no doubt just generally making life simpler for users.

Prices, builds and weights

The new Addict Gravel range will consist of five models and ten colourways, along with two frame layup options: the premium HMX carbon fibre and HMF version.

Scott lists a weight of 794 grams for an Addict HMX frame and a 990-gram weight for the HMF.

Full bike weights start at 7.8kg for the Gravel Premium bike, and rise upto 8.7kg for the Gravel 40 model.

Models ascend in order from the Gravel 40 model, through 30,20, and 10 models before topping out at the Premium model. Shimano and SRAM builds are available.

Prices start at $3499.99 / £2,499 / €2699 for the Gravel 40 bike and rise to $10,499 / £7,999 / €8,999 for the Premium.

Silver by a tyre's width. That's how Evie Richards' 2026 short track world championship ended in Val di Sole; out-sprinted on the line by Austria's Laura Stigger after a race that had both the Italian crowds and me on our feet for all ten laps. It's the sort of result that could read as heartbreak or as vindication, depending on the season you've had. For Richards, though, it's probably a bit of both.

Richards arrived in Val di Sole with a palmarès few in the field can match: elite cross-country world champion in 2021, Commonwealth Games gold in 2022, two under-23 cyclo-cross world titles either side of that, and, more recently, the overall World Series short-track crown in 2025. She's a rider whose punchy full-gas style is built for exactly this kind of race: short, sharp, tactical, and flat out from the start.

What makes it remarkable is how she managed to be at the sharp end at all, given the challenging season she's had.

2026 has been brutal for Richards, even by mountain biking's unforgiving standards. She opened the World Cup campaign in YongPyong carrying the aftermath of injury and still managed second in the short track opener, then came Nové Město: fourth in the XCC, before a horror crash in the following XCO race sent her over the bars at speed on a technical section. X-rays cleared her neck, but the head impact was serious enough to floor her for weeks, layering yet another concussion onto a rap sheet that already includes a partially dislocated knee, a lower back injury and a string of wrist problems. XC MTB takes no prisoners, and can be a real test of a rider's character.

Racing again by La Thuile was impressive enough, but ending up on a world championship podium in Val di Sole a matter of weeks later is truly remarkable.

The Bike: Trek's still-unnamed flex-stay prototype

The machine underneath her for that short track final is the same one that turned heads when it broke cover earlier in the season: an unreleased, unnamed Trek prototype that the brand itself said: "may never hit store shelves." It replaces the modified Top Fuel downcountry platform Richards raced last year, a bike that always looked slightly overbuilt for XC racing and felt more like a trail bike.

The new frame runs a flex-stay rear end, ditching a pivot at the dropouts to save weight and bearings while keeping the suspension responsive enough for Val di Sole's brutal descents. The XCC course is smoother and less technical, so some changes come from tyre pressure and inserts, but settings remain very similar across both disciplines.

Speaking of bars, she runs a one-piece bar and stem from Trek's in-house brand Bontrager and goes for a 760mm width. Some riders run narrower bars for Short Course, but not here. They are also custom-painted purple to match the rest of the bike.

Cyclingnews subscribers get early access to all of our new bike review videos before they go live on YouTube. To join our ever-growing community of cycling-obsessed subscribers and support our world-class cycling journalism, join Cyclingnews here!

Our Senior Tech Writer and Cyclingnews Tech YouTube channel presenter Will Jones describes the Cannondale CAAD14 as a serious contender for ‘first proper road bike’ for a great many customers at this price point, and a surefire contender for a spot in our guide to the best aluminium road bikes. But how did it actually fare in his comprehensive bike review?

Well, if you're a Cyclingnews subscriber, you don't need to wait to find out – simply scroll down this article to watch our video review now. There you can see whether the CAAD14's great chassis and geometry cancel out the lack of certain smaller features that could potentially hold Cannondale's latest CAAD back behind its competitors.

Not yet joined the subscriber community? Don't worry, you can get early access to this video review, plus a whole host of other brilliant features, including our Cyclingnews Labs testing, unlimited access to our unrivalled racing coverage, and member-exclusive investigations on the biggest storylines within cycling, by becoming a Cyclingnews subscriber today.

{kiosq_button:center}

Tom Pidcock raced to a sensational win in the elite mens UCI Mountain Bike World Championships at Vale di Sole, Italy, on Sunday.

Pidcock, like his great rival Mathieu van der Poel, started on the fifth row, but unlike Van der Poel, who finished in 30th position, he powered through the field before soloing clear to take a fine win.

Two-time Olympic champion. World champion in 2023. European champion twice over. Nine individual World Cup wins and counting. On paper, there was no rider in the Val di Sole field with a palmares remotely close to Pidcock's. He has been a dominant force in pretty much every XC race he has entered over the last few years; but this year has offered precious few days to prove it.

A lack of MTB race days made no difference; Pidcock was untouchable on his Pinarello Dogma XC bike. Cyclingnews was on the ground at Val di Sole, and we took a good look at Pidcock's bike ahead of the race.

The bike: A Dogma XC built for one rider

The Pinarello Dogma XC is a bike developed in close collaboration with Pidcock himself, and it's every bit as purpose-built and uncompromising as its rider.

It's an aggressive, almost old-school take on the modern XC bike, and quite different from the longer-travel, slacker, more trail-focused bikes in the rest of the World Cup field.

Pidcock usually runs a very trick-looking European Champs paint scheme, but since he isn't allowed to use it for this race, Pinarello created this for him, a paint scheme that not only works well with his GB kit, but the graphics also match the Cherry Red RockShox SID SL fork lowers perfectly.

The suspension is unchanged from last season's winning formula: RockShox's electronic Flight Attendant system is fitted front and rear, with a SID SL Ultimate fork paired to a SIDLuxe Ultimate shock.

The system automatically switches damping modes according to terrain and effort without Pidcock needing to think about a lockout lever on the climbs. It's a clean, tried-and-tested system that XC riders have widely adopted.

Cyclingnews subscribers will be familiar with our popular tech galleries from big races such as the Tour de France, the Vuelta a España and Paris Roubaix, and now it's time to take that same formula off road.

As a result, tech reporter Neal Hunt was in Val di Sole at the UCI Mountain Bike World Championships, on the hunt for the latest tech that riders and teams were using to help get their riders into the famous rainbow stripes.

Here's what he had to say:

It's been a hot and sunny Mountain Bike World Championships here in Trentino, Italy, although given it took place in Val di Sole (Valley of the Sun), shouldn't really be a surprise.

All year, the talk has been about the incoming (32-inch) new wheel size and how it will become the new norm, but on the ground in Italy, that wasn't being evidenced just yet. Despite all of the chat from previous events like Eurobike, I expected to see more here.

A lot of bike brands have been talking about it taking over their ranges next year, and plenty of products looked production-ready, but strangely, only one or two riders were using them in XC practice.

Regardless, after several days poking and nosing around the pits, here's what I managed to find.

De Rosa says that its new Merak is a ground-up update and the result of two years’ development. Changes include a bulked out fork and rear section to the frame, with larger cross-sections, with the latter claimed to increase the bike’s stability at speed.

According to Cristiano de Rosa: “I’ve spent the last few weeks riding this bike like a madman on descents. I’ve found myself reaching speeds I had never even come close to before, and what surprises me isn’t so much seeing that number on the bike computer, but feeling completely safe while getting there. The faster you go, the more you understand the work we’ve done on stability. That’s probably what impresses me most about the new Merak.”

De Rosa has pared back the Merak’s weight too, with a claimed frame weight of 700g and full builds from 6.9kg to 7.1kg. The standard spec includes a one-piece De Rosa branded Vision cockpit and a Selle Italia SLR Boost Carbon saddle.

The bike can be kitted out with the full range of Shimano, SRAM or Campagnolo electronic groupsets and there’s a range of wheels on offer.

De Rosa describes the frame graphics as ‘retrofuturism’ with a smaller downtube logo and the heart symbol removed from the head tube in favour of a De Rosa wordmark. De Rosa will offer three different finishes for the new Merak: Classic, Dynamic and Race, with slightly different prices for each.

De Rosa is leaning into its history with the new graphics. Like Colnago and Pinarello it’s a longstanding Italian bike brand. Founded in 1953, it made steel frames for Eddy Merckx, which were rebranded with his own name when he rode for Molteni and has had the Merak in its range for over 25 years.

Back in the day, the Merak was an alloy bike and was ridden to the UCI Road World Championship in 2000 by Francesco Casagrande. It’s been through a number of iterations since, with the last version launched in 2020. Until the 2023 season, De Rosa was the bike sponsor to the Cofidis team and its bikes were ridden in Paris-Roubaix in 2024 by Bingoal Pauwels Sauces WB.

De Rosa Merak specs and prices

The Merak frameset with fork, headset, seatpost and thru-axles is priced at €5,600 for the Classic, €5,800 for the Race and €5,950 for the Dynamic finish.

De Rosa quotes full bike prices of €13,230 with Campagnolo Super Record 13 and Bora Ultra WTO wheels, €11,390 with Record and Bora Ultra WTO wheels, €11,880 for Dura-Ace with Fulcrum Speed DB wheels and €12,500 for SRAM Red AXS with a power meter and the same Fulcrum wheels.

Ridley has launched a brand new gravel race bike today in the form of the Kanzo Fast 2.0

The bike is an aero-focused gravel race machine, with very large tyre clearances. Ridley has joined the brands that are reacting to the rising speeds and aerodynamic requirements and, dare we say it, trends within competitive gravel racing right now.

The Kanzo model has been in the Ridley range for some years, first launching back in 2020. It currently exists in adventure and race-specific forms; this new 2.0 bike sees it join the latest crop of the best gravel race bikes with big tyre clearances.

We spotted this bike in prototype form back in April at the Traka, along with a host of other gravel race bikes like the Argon 18 Anti Matter and a prototype Canyon Grail. Its mean looking silhouette set tongues wagging at the time, and we have been looking forward to receiving more details on it.

A new Kanzo era

Here's what Ridley has to say on the Kanzo Fast 2.0;

"A gravel race bike designed to deliver maximum speed on fast and demanding courses, while giving riders the freedom to choose the tyre setup that best matches the terrain and conditions."

Aero is clearly a consideration the headtube is much deeper than the current Kanzo or the Astr model from Ridley, and is comparable to the Noah Fast aero road model. This theme continues through the bike with deep, agressive tube profiles on show.

Tyre clearance for the new bike is 58mm or a 29x2.3" mtb tyre. A healthy increase from the current Kanzo's 42mm number, and more than the Ridley Astr RS's 52mm. The frame itself is also said to be 150 grams lighter than the previous Kanzo Fast.

Big tyre clearance is a must right now for new gravel race bikes being launched, and Ridley certainly seems on board with that thinking. The 58mm number is a little curious; a lot of bikes have 57mm clearance now. That extra 1mm isn't really going to open up any new tyre options, but it should give a little more clearance with big tyres fitted, and of course a wide range of options, both big and small, are available to a rider with this kind of clearance. It is also the largest we can see on the market currently, beating the likes of the Allied Able and Lauf Seigla by a single milimetre.

That 58mm clearance drew my eye; it feels a little unusual. I asked Ridley if there was any particular significance to it; could it be a simple 'one more than the competition' thing?

The brand told me it prefers working with even numbers in its frame design and that they are easier to work with. Relevant ISO clearance (4mm) is also an even number, and 58 is the next even number up from 57mm.

There is also updated geometry; the bottom bracket has been lowered and fork rake adjusted to deal with the large tyres the bike will be used with, the seat tube angle steepened, and Ridley cites the need to keep the chainstays as short as possible to maintain a racy feel.

To compare the 2.0 with the outgoing Kanzo Fast, the new bike in a size medium has a stack of 585 and a reach of 408. The same size in the current bike has a stack number of 587 and a reach of 385. The 2.0 is both lower and longer.

Aero credentials

Ridley says 'aero efficiency has been improved' and the brand has been to the wind tunnel, likely its own; the brand enjoys the use of a wind tunnel at its bike Valley location in Belgium.

We have some top-line testing numbers from the brand. As is often the case, it's hard for a brand to package up comprehensive aero testing into a compact press release, but we have some numbers, and some claims.

The new Kanzo is said to be 2 watts faster than its predecessor in bike-only testing and 13 watts faster in bike and rider testing. The testing setup included identical wheels and 38mm Vittoria Terreno Dry tyres. The bikes had two bottle cages and bottles fitted.

Ridley claims a 38mm tyre created 6 less watts aero drag than a 55mm tyre. That's with Vittoria tyres fitted to the 4ZA Skiron wheels. However, the brand acknowledges that the rolling resistance reduction on rough ground will offset the aero loss. We came to the same conclusion in our CN Labs tyre testing.

Tunnel results come from a weighted average over a -12 to 12 degree yaw sweep with a rider on, and a -18 to 18 yaw sweep for the bike only testing. All of the Ridley testing was conducted at 36km/h, which is generally regarded as being in line with gravel race speeds.

Frame details and features

The Kanzo Fast 2.0 has internal frame storage in the downtube; two padded pouches will allow riders to store the essentials.

There are also a pair of top tube mount points for riders to mount a top tube bag.

The frame is designed around 1x electronic groupsets and can accommodate up to a 56-tooth chainring, which in part facilitates the generous tyre clearance.

Mudguards can also be fitted to the bike; a bespoke mudguard system has been designed with Belgian brand Curana.

The Nimbus Pro cockpit sounds like it will only come in one size, with a 36cm width at the tops, widening to a 40cm size at the drops.

The 1350-gram Forza Skiron RS wheels which the full bike builds come with feature 50mm deep rims, with a 27mm internal width hookless rim. Vonoa carbon spokes are used, and the wheels will have CeramicSpeed bearings. Whilst they aren't the most widely known wheels, it sounds like they possess a competitive overall specification.

Pricing and specs

The bike will be available as a frameset and in three full builds. What we don't currently have is bike build weights, but we do know it will be possible to customise bikes on the Ridley online custom configurator.

The frameset will cost €4,499 and includes frame, fork, Deda aero seapost, 4ZA Nimbus cockpit and CeramicSpeed SLT headset bearings.

Three builds centred around three SRAM XPLR gravel groupsets, a popular build option right now, are available.

The top-spec SRAM Red XPLR bike will come with DT Swiss GRC14000 DICUT wheels and a 4ZA Nimbus Pro cockpit; it will carry an RRP of €11,699

The Force XPLR bike comes in at €6,499 with Forza Skiron wheels and the same integrated handlebar as the Red-equipped bike.

Finally, the Rival XPLR bike comes in at €5,499 with Forza Skiron GC40 wheels and a Cirrcus Pro cockpit.

Cyclingnews subscribers get early access to all of our new bike review videos before they go live on YouTube. To join our ever-growing community of cycling-obsessed subscribers and support our world-class cycling journalism, join Cyclingnews here!

At first glance, the Incolour SSR is a very accomplished machine, and gives off the impression that it could be a worthy match against many of the industry's best aero road bikes. It is lightweight and has a claimed aero package just under four watts faster than the Cervélo S5, a bike widely considered one of the best aero bikes on the market, and one that came out on top in our own wind tunnel testing. But did the Incolour score as highly on the roads as its reported aero data did? Senior Tech Writer Will Jones put the SSR through its paces on his local roads to find out.

As a Cyclingnews subscriber, you don't have to wait to find out the answer – simply scroll down and hit play to enjoy the latest, in-depth CN Tech video review.

Not yet joined the subscriber community? Don't worry, you can get early access to this video review, plus a whole host of other brilliant features, including our Cyclingnews Labs testing, unlimited access to our unrivalled racing coverage, and member-exclusive investigations on the biggest storylines within cycling, by becoming a Cyclingnews subscriber today.

If you wanted a Tarmac SL9 when Specialized announced the bike back in June, just ahead of the Tour de France, you’d have needed deep pockets. That’s because the Tarmac SL9 was only available in S-Works spec, built on Specialized’s premium FACT 12r carbon, with top-tier components to boot.

You can read a detailed breakdown of what’s new with the SL9 update and Specialized’s claimed four watts aero improvement in Josh's S-Works Tarmac SL9 launch story.

But if you're not looking to spend north of £10k/$10k on your next bike, you'll be pleased to know that the S-Works Tarmac SL9 has today been joined by less expensive Expert and Comp specs of the SL9, based on the FACT 10r carbon platform.

And for the first time, there’s an S-Level Tarmac too, which pairs the FACT 10r frameset with top-spec groupset components from SRAM and Shimano. There's not one equipped with the new Shimano Dura-Ace yet, though, despite the R9300 groupset leaking at the Vuelta.

S-Level is a concept that Specialized first introduced in May with the S-Level Crux gravel bike, and essentially bolts quality components and a top-of-range groupset onto the less premium frameset. You get a bike with similar performance to the S-Works model, just a little heavier and for a lot less cash. Complete S-Level build weights start from a claimed 7.13kg versus 6.5kg for the S-Works bike, for example.

Specialized says that it is a replacement for its previous Pro spec level and claims it “delivers the closest experience to S-Works performance and exceeds every competing race bike in its class."

A little more weight, a lot less cash

While the S-Works frameset has a 687g claimed weight, the FACT 10r frame weighs a claimed 882g. It’s paired with the same FACT 12r fork as used on the S-Works bike, but with stainless steel headset bearings in place of CeramicSpeed.

The complete S-Level frameset has a 1.64kg claimed weight and comes with a S-Works Tarmac SL8 seatpost carried over from the previous generation Tarmac, while the S-Works frameset weighs a claimed 1.39kg, including the new S-Works Rapide Post seatpost.

Spec-wise, the S-Level Tarmac SL9 has the same one-piece Roval Rapide Cockpit as the S-Works bike and is equipped either with a Shimano Dura-Ace or SRAM Red AXS groupset. Both come with a dual-sided power meter, the in-series SRAM meter or 4iiii Precision Pro for Shimano.

The Roval CL III wheels are a tier down from the CLX III wheels fitted to the S-Works bike and the Power Pro Mirror saddle too is a step down from the S-Works Power saddle on the top spec bike.

But while the S-Works Tarmac SL9 retails for £11,999 / $14,000 / €13,999 / AU$21,500 with Red AXS, the S-Level bike costs £8,799 / $10,500 / €10,499 / AU$15,500 with the same groupset. Dura-Ace is a little cheaper in the US and Australia, the same price in Europe and the UK.

Expert and Comp Tarmac SL9 specs

In addition, there are Expert and Comp-level Tarmac SL9 specs announced, equipped with a two-piece alloy bar and stem.

The Expert spec comes with either a SRAM Force AXS groupset with 48/35t chainrings and a 10-36t cassette or Shimano Ultegra with a semi-compact. Neither include a power meter.

It’s fitted with Roval C38 carbon wheels and the S-Works Tarmac SL8 seatpost. Specialized claims a size 56 bike weighs 7.55kg.

The Tarmac SL9 Expert is priced at £5,999 / $7,000 / €6,999 / AU$10,200 with Force AXS, again with a slightly lower price for the Shimano spec in the US and Australia.

The Tarmac SL9 Comp is equipped either with a SRAM Rival AXS or Shimano 105 Di2 groupset. Also specced are DT Swiss R470 alloy rims on Specialized hubs and the S-Works Tarmac SL8 seatpost.

Specialized claims an 8.14kg weight for a size 56 bike in Rival AXS spec and 8.21kg with 105 Di2. The Comp is priced at £3,999 / $4,500 / €4,499 / AU$7,200 in both SRAM and Shimano specs.

The sun may have failed to penetrate between some of Monaco's taller structures as riders navigated the tight twists and turns of the Vuelta a España's highly technical opening prologue, but the speeds were scorching.

We were on the ground at the final Grand Tour of the year for stages one and two and, as per usual, were on the hunt for the race's best tech.

Pogačar denied Ethan Hayter a prologue victory by the narrowest of margins, and we took a good look at Hayter's machine before the start; the Brit can be devastatingly quick in short time trials, and we had an eye on him.

We spotted a new Dura-Ace groupset in the wild for the first time, and we have images in the gallery below; it's clearly not finished, but it's the first time it's been seen at a race. We will be following this one closely for you over the next few months.

Elsewhere, we spied a new time trial saddle for Tadej Pogačar and took a look at a beautiful custom Spanish national champion's bike along with a few other Spanish squads' machines.

A first for Van Rysel, the RCR-G represents the brand’s first foray into gravel race bikes. The racing pedigree is clearly present, with many of the frame design features and components coming straight off the WorldTour race winning RCR-R Pro road bike, although that may be getting replaced imminently.

Full integrated aero one-piece handlebars, 50mm carbon race wheels, and full 13-speed SRAM Red XPLR groupset make it one heck of a race bike package, for a pretty good price considering all that’s included. The only oddity is the somewhat basic saddle included as part of this.

Clearance for 50mm tyres is somewhat race ready, but that along with a relatively stiff frame does mean this bike is best kept for smoother champagne style gravel and fire roads, rather than anything excessively rocky, rooted, or muddy. However, most gravel races do tend to be 45-50mm friendly rather than requiring the large MTB tyre sizes now accommodated for. But this, plus limited storage options exclude this from more adventure riding, but then the brand has a specific option for this, so perhaps that is not a bad thing.

But how does the new Van Rysel RCR-G stack up when compared to the best gravel bikes on the market?

Design and specifications

The brand new RCR-G frame has been designed in a similar vein to the RCR-R Pro road frame as used by the Decathlon CMA CGM WorldTour team. Van Rysel says the frame was designed in conjunction with the team, although I’m not aware of any of their riders being dedicated gravel racers. But regardless, the frame has been designed for “uncompromising speed in modern gravel racing.”.

This is a dedicated gravel race bike, not a compromise between adventure and racing as the brand puts it. Looking at the demands of gravel racing, Van Rysel identified key points that needed to be focused on: high average speeds, mixed-surface efficiency, explosive accelerations, and precise handling on technical terrain.

To address that first point, the frame has been through CFD and wind tunnel testing, similar to the RCR-R. This has apparently yielded an 8.6w efficiency gain, although the speed this is tested at was not specified.

On the second point, 50mm tyre clearance and accommodation for 2x groupsets means most surfaces and gradients can be confidently tackled.

For light weight, the frame comes in at 885g (Medium unpainted) and 415g for the fork. These use similar carbon layup to the RCR-R road bike, but with ‘gravel-specific layup designed to balance low weight, reactive power transfer and increased durability for the demands of off-road racing’. Lightweight thru-axles and a 27.2mm round carbon vibration dampening seatpost assist in this low build weight and required compliance.

Specific features of the frame also include in-built armour on the downtube into the bottom bracket, on the drive-side chainstay, and bottle mounts on the underside of the downtube and on the top of the toptube. It can accommodate up to a 50 tooth single chainring, or 52 tooth dual chainring setup. It is also UDH compatible with the three builds available all using 13 speed SRAM XPLR groupsets. You can see looking at the geometry charts that this is a rather long and low frame by most gravel bike comparisons. Meanwhile the chainstays and wheelbase are relatively short for more agile handling.

The handlebars are the same Combo RCR-R Carbon one-piece system used on the Van Rysel RCR-R Pro road bike. These are specced in a fairly racy configuration, with the stem length coming in at 140mm from top cap bolt to centre of bars, and around 370mm centre to centre from where the hoods sit on the tops. The bars feature a flare out with an aerofoil shape, but a slight reduction of this near the centre line which makes holding the tops more comfortable. A computer mount is supplied with fitting for Garmin, Wahoo, and Bryton, with GoPro style mount underneath. This mount is long enough to fit larger computers like the Garmin Edge 1050.

The wheels are Van Rysel’s own brand, with the VR50 wheelset. This is not a gravel specific wheelset, and instead is the same that can be found on the RCR-R Pro road bike. Claimed weight is 1550g for a pair built on the ever-reliable DT Swiss 370 hubs. Rim height is, as the name suggests, 50mm, while internal width is 22mm and external 30mm, using 24 spokes front and rear in a 1:1 2-cross lacing pattern. These are shod with the Continental Terra Comp TLR 45 mm tyres, which sit at 44mm.

Groupset on this specification is the SRAM Red XPLR 13-speed offering. Gearing is a 44 tooth front chainring with the 10-46t cassette, giving you a better than 1:1 ratio if required for the steepest gravel inclines. Crank length in this size 58cm is 172.5mm.

Meanwhile the saddle is the Fizik Vento Argo X3. It’s gravel specific, but uses alloy rails rather than carbon on the X1 variant. It’s 140mm wide, and more rounded so as to be more comfortable for gravel riding.

Performance

Getting on the Van Rysel RCR-G one thing is abundantly clear, this is a race bike. I’ve been testing a few gravel bikes lately, and switching between those and my road racing bike there is a big shift in the feel. Shorter stems and taller stack height give the gravel bikes a very different handling sensation. The RCR-G however is a low and slung out racing machine. The stem is 140mm in this size while the bars are a relatively narrow 37cm on the hood centre to centre, giving it a far more familiar feel to a road racing bike than a gravel machine. For some, this may be too aggressive a position, but it solidifies this bike as a race option designed to go fast. I have not found this geometry uncomfortable, given the position I use on the road, but it is worth considering for those wanting a more relaxed fit. I have also kept all the spacers under the stem, so there is certainly scope to go significantly lower.

Whereas adventure bikes are all about fitting points, the RCR-G keeps this to a minimum. There are downtube/BB storage bolts for a bottle cage or tools, but there is no internal storage, namely, to save weight with the associated hardware that would be required. If you’re racing, then I can understand this, as limiting weight is key and taping tubes or cannisters to the frame is often a chosen pathway. For more casual riding, I like the internal storage, and I did miss this. There are bolts on the toptube however to add a toptube bag, and I duly did for some additional storage across my riding. But when every bolt required internal threaded metal sleeves, more engineering, and more weight, I understand the design choice to exclude many of them. But still, a frame bag option such as the Argon18 is practical, generally incurs no aerodynamic penalty, and looks neat.

Bars I am a big fan of, and these are directly from the road. It means a very limited flare for gravel bars, and quite a long reach and deep drop by comparison. The only issue here is on technical terrain, it can be a little trickier to drop from tops to drops, while shallow drop flared bars allow you to almost roll your hands down without losing contact with the bars. The bars however are stiff for accelerations and do not feel to rattle you unduly.

The seatpost is an interesting choice, being round rather than D-shaped for aerodynamics, but it does mean a dropper post can be accommodated, many different seatpost geometries, and Van Rysel has designed it to be more compliant, very useful for gravel racing over long distances where fatigue can be a huge detriment to performance. The saddle is fine, but I expected a slightly higher end option with this pinnacle build choice. I ended up swapping it for comfort reasons and having personal preferences over saddles and allowing me to test the frame with a family seat beneath me.

The wheels are also a carry-over from the RCR-R road bike, so the internal width is quite narrow for gravel wheel standards. The 45mm Continental Terra Comp tyres sit rather wide on them as well, bulging out. This was noticeable when riding on some sections at speed with crosswinds, which did buffer me significantly. Although, at low pressure the narrower rim may be safer from direct rim strikes, and the wheels are reasonably light, but not class leading. They are also stiff, both laterally for performance, but also vertically which can be a little jarring. The tyres however are decent and rolled well on various terrain, save for a little bit of slippage over looser terrain or wet surfaces as the tread is not overly thick and quite uniform across the tyre.

All of these elements do mean that this bike is certainly a fast-paced smoother gravel specialist. I’ve been riding it across a range of canal paths, forest trails, tarmac, bike paths, and root infested downhill sections. When the trail is smoother, this bike goes like a rocket, as testified by unintentional KOMs on Strava aboard this. On twisty and technical surfaces, the bike responds well but remains stable. I personally like the long stem geometry that leads to a more reliable sensation at speed like a road racing bike. The flip side is that at very low speed the bike is a little more cumbersome, but it is designed for high speed racing. It does however climb well, as the total system weight is low and the stiffness means power transfer is effective, so you feel very little loss in power towards compliance elements. But this does have a flipside.

Rough terrain is where it starts to suffer. The difficulty switching from tops to drops, narrower bars, less compliant bars and wheels and a generally stiffer platform all lead to this bike being a little jarring over significantly rougher surfaces. Not just roots, or hard mud trails that are rutted, but larger stones as well. The seatpost does a good job, but the rest of the bike is not as compliant.

Of course, larger tyres could help, but a 50mm limit is in reality not large. Given that many gravel tyres I’ve tested come out wider than advertised, you are realistically limited to smaller than 50mm to avoid frame rub. I do think ditching the 2x compatibility and widening the chainstays and fork to accommodate 55mm would have been the right call. I prefer 2x for gravel riding, but in most gravel races I’ve done I’ve never got into the small ring anyway, and the SRAM XPLR gear range means that for the most part I did not miss two chainrings one bit. I don’t need to go into the SRAM Red XPLR groupset too much, it’s amazing, it converted me (mostly) to 1x for gravel, and most reviewers and riders tend to agree. There’s a reason it is the most prevalent groupset for gravel riding. Especially for racing, it makes sense to design this bike as 1x only with potentially a 50-52t chainring limit, and space the chainstays out further to accept wider tyres. It would increase the versatility of the frame and maintain a very race driven focus. The forks should be wider anyway as a wider front tyre does inspire greater cornering confidence. You can slide a rear tyre, you can’t slide a front, so more traction there makes a big difference in my experience.

I would also personally like to see some wider width gravel rims as we’ve seen at high speeds that a wide rim paired with wide tyres can be faster, and likely better in the crosswinds I experienced. The wheels are good for accelerations, even with the heavier weight, but for gravel racing and speed, they need an update for this model.

Value

£6500 is not cheap, but given the SRAM Red XPLR groupset with power meter retails for £3299.99 itself, plus wheels for £799.99, £599.99 for the bars, and you’re looking at the frame coming in at ~£1800 based on that calculation.

Other similarly equipped bikes for example include the Factor Ostro Gravel (£10199) or Aluto (£8699), Specialized Crux S-Level 5 (£8749) or £11999 for the S-Works model, Argon 18 Anti Matter (£10495), or Cervelo Aspero 5 (£10249.99). Even if we look at less boutique brands, the Ribble Ultra Grit is £7549 and Handsling A1R0evoG is £6799 which really demonstrates just how good value the RCR-G really is.

Even building up a Tavelo Grow frame you’re looking at $1930 for the frame and bars, so building with similar components will not be far off the price of the Van Rysel.

The Crux 5 does have the potential to be lighter, while the Argon 18 might be more aerodynamic with wider tyre clearances and smart storage options, but as a balanced combination of a lightweight gravel race frame that is well specced, it is really hard to argue for those options ahead of the Van Rysel which is nearly half the price.

The issue is if you want a frame with wider tyre clearances. I would say for most gravel races, 50mm clearance is enough, save for some events. For me personally, this bike has been great for race condition terrain, but it does need some more gravel specific wheels and a better saddle for the spec.

Other builds offer similarly good value at £4000 for SRAM Force XPLR and carbon wheels, or £3000 for Rival XLPR and alloy rims.

Verdict

The Van Rysel RCR-G is an impressively specced gravel race bike for the price, making it a great value offering. The groupset is superb, the frame itself and handlebars are great for race speeds, while 50mm clearance is generally enough for most race scenarios in my view.

The saddle is a bit lacking compared to the rest, while the wheels are not gravel specific so a bit narrow. The larger issue though is the lack of general compliance on rougher terrain. It’s fine on champagne gravel and fire roads, but rough stuff can shake you a bit more than you’d like. Geometry is also more road race feeling, which I personally like, but others may want to consider.

All in all, a superb gravel race specific bike as gravel bikes split and diverge into more and more specialist models.

Van Rysel has launched two new gravel bikes. While the RCR-G is designed for gravel racing, the EDR-G is a gravel adventure bike, designed for endurance gravel rides.

The RCR-G takes tech from the RCR-R road bike, with a racy position and aero frameset, and pairs it with 50mm tyre clearance. It's priced from £3,000 / $5,299.

The EDR-G is taller and slacker and has the mounts and in-frame storage for gravel exploration and ultra-distance riding. The top spec has a 40mm travel suspension fork, while prices start at £2,100.

RCR-G gravel race bike

Van Rysel has worked with its sponsored Decathlon-CMA CGM team to develop its gravel race bike, which it says is inspired by the RCR-R Pro road bike. That’s its aero/lightweight road bike rather than the RCR-F aero road bike; RCR denotes ‘racer’.

According to Jéremie Debeuf, Van Rysel’s race product manager: “With the RCR-G, we didn't want to adapt an adventure bike into a race bike, we wanted to develop a true gravel race platform from the ground up.”

So Van Rysel says that the RCR-G is a blank page design, with its objective being to develop a fast bike for gravel racing. As such, there’s a low stack and long reach to allow an aero ride position. There are short 426mm chainstays, while the size M frame has a 72-degree head tube angle and a 1019mm wheelbase.

The brand has used CFD analysis and wind tunnel testing to refine the RCR-G’s aerodynamics, which it says show an 8.6 watt aero saving over its previous generation GCR model.

Read our impressions of the new bike in our Van Rysel RCR-G review.

It’s also built 50mm tyre clearance into the frame, which is in line with preferred tyre widths for modern gravel racing. You can fit a 50T 1x chainring or 2x chainset with a max outer ring of 52T, while three bottle cage mounts and top tube bolts offer carrying capacity when racing. The top spec is fitted with the same one-piece aero cockpit as used on the RCR-R Pro road bike.

Van Rysel says that a size M unpainted RCR-G frame weighs 885g, while the fork weighs 415g, and that its premium carbon fibre delivers both power transfer and durability. A full build with SRAM Red XPLR AXS in size M has a claimed 7.7kg weight.

It’s not the same bike as we spotted atop the team car at the Tour Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes in June, so there’s another road race bike in the works at Van Rysel as well.

RCR-G specs and prices

Van Rysel will sell the RCR-G in three specs, all with SRAM XPLR AXS 13-speed groupsets and with Continental Terra Comp 45mm tyres fitted to its own wheels, either carbon or alloy. The bike is available in sizes XS to XL.

• RCR-G Red AXS
  • Frame/fork: RCR-G high modulus carbon
  • Groupset: SRAM Red XPLR AXS, 44t / 10-46t
  • Wheelset: VR 50 Carbon
  • Tyres: Continental Terra Comp 45mm
  • Cockpit: Combo RCR-R Carbon
  • Claimed weight: 7.8kg (size M)
  • Price: £6,500 / $10,999 / €6,599
• RCR-G Force AXS
  • Frame/fork: RCR-G high modulus carbon
  • Groupset: SRAM Force XPLR AXS, 42t / 10-46t
  • Wheelset: VR 35 Carbon
  • Tyres: Continental Terra Comp 45mm
  • Cockpit: VR Carbon bars on VR AL alloy stem
  • Claimed weight: 8.2kg (size M)
  • Price: £4,000 / $7,399 / €4,199
• RCR-G Rival AXS
  • Frame/fork: RCR-G high modulus carbon
  • Groupset: SRAM Rival XPLR AXS, 40t / 10-46t
  • Wheelset: VR 35 AL alloy
  • Tyres: Continental Terra Comp 45mm
  • Cockpit: VR AL alloy bars on VR AL alloy stem
  • Claimed weight: 8.6kg (size M)
  • Price: £3,000 / $5,299 / €3,199

EDR-G gravel adventure bike

Meanwhile, the EDR-G (EDR, as in ‘endurance’) is aimed at riders looking for off-road versatility and comfort on adventure gravel rides and, Van Rysel says, is suited to gravel beginners as well as experienced ultra-distance gravel cyclists.

According to Rachel Gassier, Van Rysel’s endurance product manager: “With the EDR-G, our ambition wasn't to create another gravel bike, it was to create a bike that encourages riders to keep exploring. Whether you're heading out for a few hours, taking on an ultra-distance challenge or setting off on a multi-day bikepacking adventure, comfort and confidence become just as important as performance.”

The geometry is taller and slacker than the RCR-G, with a higher stack and shorter reach, a head tube angle across the size range from XS to XL of between 68 and 71.5 degrees and a longer wheelbase of 1,033.7mm for a size M.

Van Rysel says that the new bike has been tested over 25,000km by a team of 30 test riders, as well as by ultra-distance cyclist Juliette Coqueret on a self-supported 10,000km ride across Europe.

Its carbon lay-up is designed to prioritise vibration suppression, while Van Rysel claims the geometry offers stable, responsive handling. The EDR-G offers in-frame storage that’s positioned towards the top of the down tube rather than under the bottle cage, as is more usual. Van Rysel sells the bike ready-installed with a repair pack with a mini pump, inner tube, multitool and tyre levers.

That’s backed up with no fewer than 15 mounts for luggage, bottles and accessories. The EDR-G has Deda Gera gravel-specific flared handlebars with a separate stem. Van Rysel fits its VR32 carbon gravel wheelset, which has a 1,600g claimed weight, on the higher spec, while the lower spec has DT Swiss G1800 alloy gravel wheels..

There’s the option to choose the premium spec with a RockShox Rudy XPLR 40mm travel suspension fork, although the choice of a rigid or a suspension fork is only available in mainland Europe. The rigid fork variant is not sold in the UK, while the suspension fork variant is not available to US riders.

EDR-G specs and prices

• EDR-G Force AXS
  • Frame/fork: EDR-G carbon
  • Groupset: SRAM Force XPLR AXS, 40t / 10-46t
  • Wheelset: VR 32 Gravel Carbon
  • Tyres: Schwalbe G-One R Pro 45mm
  • Cockpit: Deda Gera alloy, 24 degree flare
  • Claimed weight: 8.85kg (size M)
  • Price: £N/A / $6,299 / €3,199
• EDR-G Suspended Fork
  • Frame: EDR-G carbon
  • Fork: RockShox Rudy XPLR 40mm
  • Groupset: SRAM Force XPLR AXS, 40t / 10-46t
  • Wheelset: VR 32 Gravel Carbon
  • Tyres: Schwalbe G-One R Pro 45mm
  • Cockpit: Deda Gera alloy, 24 degree flare
  • Claimed weight: 9.7kg (size M)
  • Price: £3,500 / $N/A / €3,499
• EDR-G GRX
  • Frame/fork: EDR-G carbon
  • Groupset: Shimano GRX 610, 40t / 10-51t
  • Wheelset: DT Swiss G1800 alloy
  • Tyres: Schwalbe G-One R Perf 45mm
  • Cockpit: Deda Gera alloy, 24 degree flare
  • Claimed weight: 8.75kg (size M)
  • Price: £2,100 / $N/A / €2,199

Availability for the RCR-G and EDR-G depends on the spec, colour and territory, and stretches from August 2026 into 2027, with dates for US sales yet to be confirmed.

“It looks like a vape”

That was the verdict of my partner, who owns a Fara herself on the Gr4. Specifically, because I checked, it looks exactly like the Vapes Bars Lemon and Lime 3000 puff model. I nearly bought one for the bit, before remembering I have a worryingly addictive personality and thought better of it. This also doesn’t come across in the photos because, in my infinite wisdom, I decided to shoot the thing in an abandoned quarry which was essentially black.

I’ve not had a great time with gravel bikes this year. I appreciate most of you will be coming to this review standalone without the benefit of context, but for the 8 or so readers hanging on my every word you’ll have seen that I tested the Factor Aluto, which was too road-like and didn’t feel overly capable on the rough stuff, and the Stooge Rambler, which weighed the same as a mid-size aircraft carrier, neither of which translated into an overly joyful experience.

Now, though, I seem to have turned a corner with the Fara Gr4. Unlike its predecessor, it’s a totally modern gravel race bike, hitting all the trends but somehow still managing to stay surprisingly practical. I really, really like it. It may sacrifice a bit in terms of aero to the likes of the Argon18 Anti Matter, but I’d trade that for what you get in return.

Design and aesthetics

I have a big soft spot for Norway; my second proper job was based there, and if you want a little vignette that I think encapsulates the character of a nation, then you need to look no further than its hardware stores. If we wanted to rent or buy some tools for some light construction work, we popped down to a shop called TOOLS. Simple, beautiful. This pragmatism is somewhat reflected in the Gr4, once you peel back the modern gravel race bike layers.

Looking at the old Gr3 model, it’s hard to believe this is derived in any way. The Gr3 was fine but pretty middle of the road; a do-it-all machine trying to be all things to all people by the looks of it. The Gr4 is very progressive by comparison.

The tyres are probably going to be what draw the eye first. My test bike came with 55mm Continental Dubnitals, but you can officially go up to a 57mm, which is a 2.25” mtb tyre. Mounted up to the massive Zipp 303 XPLR S wheels, they look enormous, and while in our little bubble of covering gravel racing they look sort of normal now, if you rock up to your local club gravel ride with these they’re still going to turn heads. It's also likely that a 2.25" tyre on these rims would be over capacity, looking at the room that's left around the seat tube in particular.

Up front there’s also a visually interesting (some have said ugly) cockpit. Personally I don’t hate the looks, and ergonomically it’s absolutely on the money. The swept-down tops put your wrists at a far more comfortable angle when riding in the tops, and it’s still novel to have something this narrow at the hoods on a gravel bike (38.5cm). I’m so glad the era of fitting the widest possible drop bars is behind us because these feel great for a narrow boy like me. They’re very much like the Coefficient bars of a while back.

What I also like is the fact you can adjust the reach fore and aft by 1cm just by moving the tops back into a different pair of slots. It’s a less clean look, but if you’re embarking on an ultra and want a less racy position then you can back it off and raise the stem up the standard round steerer a bit to suit your needs in a couple of minutes without getting hydraulic fluid all over yourself. Or, like me, you can set it to as long as it’ll go and slam it.

The seatpost is carbon, and has a very good degree of flex in it, likely to some degree because it is a 15mm layback option, but I managed to get my saddle far enough forward that I found a very happy position over the BB. It is also round, meaning you could, if you so wish, run a dropper post. Most of the time I never felt I needed one, but on occasional hairy descents down steep, rocky and rooty gullies I did want for that extra torso clearance as I was hanging off the back of the bike.

It’s not to mark it down for not having one as stock at all, and definitely a plus that you can fit one, despite the likely aero penalty. It also means it has a normal external seat clamp which I love. So much easier to live with than wedges and internal systems.

Want to strap things to your forks? Well, there’s triple eyelets neatly blanked out with grub screws for those of you who want to ruin a perfectly good bike ride by going camping, or ruin a perfectly good camping trip by cycling there. Likewise, there are mounts on the top tube for a bento box; there’s talk of a frame bag for spring this year but that doesn’t seem to have materialised, and space for another cage under the downtube in front of a rubberised bumper to protect the disposable vape paint job (other paint schemes are available)

I am not a huge fan of internal storage, but the downtube has a non-rattling door that happily houses a TPU inner tube and a mini pump with relative ease, so I can’t complain much on that account. Also inside the frame are Ceramicspeed bearings, both in the bottom bracket and SLT (solid lubrication technology) headset bearings, which are especially a sensible upgrade on a mucky bike with internal hoses.

In terms of sizing and geo, it’s quite a long bike for a nominal size. I rode a large, which is quoted as a 56, and it’s 8mm longer and 12mm higher in stack and reach than the latest S-Works Crux. The seat tube is half a degree steeper to 74 degrees, and the head tube 0.8 degrees slacker at 71.2 degrees. These are all totally fine numbers, but comparatively the interesting things I think are the standover height, by function of a shorter seat tube (Fara is 26mm shorter, resulting in a 18mm lower standover) and a bottom bracket that’s 8mm lower, which is a lot. I don’t think I’ve ever ridden a drop bar bike with an 80mm bottom bracket drop. The latest Orbea Orca Aero has a BB drop of 78mm, and that’s the lowest of any road bike on the market.

Performance

I’ve not been this impressed with a gravel bike in a while. My stance on gravel bikes has changed in the last couple of years; where previously I would prefer my gravel bikes to be as road-like in their feel as possible, optimising for the road and just relying on bigger tyres to get through off-road sections, I am now very much minded that gravel bikes should be optimised for the off-road sections, and the Gr4 feels very much optimised for the rough stuff.

It isn’t an enormous machine by any stretch, but it feels bigger than it is when you venture off the tarmac. The longer, slightly slacker feel of it versus bikes like the Aluto makes it feel incredibly stable on really very bumpy terrain, even to the extent that I managed to bag a KOM on a descent (for all of about 9 minutes until someone else hit ‘upload’ back at the pub). All joking aside though, the Gr4 is a joy to send down both fast and open descents, and when things get narrow, rocky, and rooty as they often do near me, it performs valiantly there too.

Part of this is absolutely down to the lower bottom bracket, and while an 80mm BB drop sounds a lot, this needs to be viewed in the context of the 55mm Continental Dubnital tyres, which up the ride height considerably to the point that pedal strike was never an issue. Regardless, it feels hunkered down, squatted even, and I suspect with a dropper post it would be sensational for longer, steeper descents. The seatpost as it is, though, is lovely and compliant, visibly moving underneath you, and when combined with the higher volume tyres you get pretty incredible comfort. I could happily spend all day on this thing.

This lower chassis also means it corners really very well indeed. The Dubnitals aren’t the most grippy of the MTB tyres, and while they are fast I’d probably swap them to something like the Maxxis Aspen if I was blessed with more time on this machine, they’re more than grippy enough when combined with the frame geometry and a set of wheels with sidewalls wide enough to support the tyre carcass in hard, flat cornering. Oddly, the bike isn’t sold with Dubnitals; this seems to be some media setup. You’ll get Thunder Burts, which are good, and more knobbly, but maybe not the ones for summer, or you’ll get Schwalbe G-One RS Pros if you get the Campag build, which I haven’t ridden but look an absolute hoot in a 55mm.

On the flat, on and off-road, it may not have the aero chops of the Argon18 Anti Matter, but the cockpit is also narrower, and so all in it may well be faster than the test Argon we had in recently. We haven’t aero tested it, so it’s all subjective, but you don’t half barrel along, aided and abetted by the big tyres gobbling up bumps that would perturb other bikes and cause you to have to back off the power to take evasive action, which also rings true on the road with our numerous and interesting collection of potholes in the UK.

I was surprised to see the geometry charts in all honesty, because it doesn’t feel sluggish at all on the road. The narrow cockpit and fast tyres mean I can hold a speed that’s only barely below what I can on a road bike, and while the front end is a little more languid and the tyres are a bit more squirmy I never begrudged it at all on road sections, which is a rarity. It feels more playful than the silhouette would have you believe.

I have no complaints about the weight (8.7kg with cages, computer mount, and a sensible glug of sealant in each tyre, but no pedals), and the gearing. In reality, unless you want the absolute top-tier Red XPLR (and can afford the replacements when things wear out), then Force is the place to be for gravel. The shifting is good, the hoods are brilliant, the braking incredible, you still get the bonus buttons on the hoods, and in this case you get a power meter too (ooh big number go up), and the gear range sufficient to tackle just about anything.

I also love this cockpit, even aside from the adjustable reach. The ergonomics are brilliant, and the tops being at a better angle for your wrists is a real plus, even if visually it isn’t the best-looking thing in the world (‘it’s got a cupholder’, was remarked).

In fact, as I write this, there isn’t really anything I dislike about the Gr4. It’s excellent.

Value

In this guise (swapping the tyres to Thunder Burts, of course), it’ll cost you $8,500, or €8,000, or £8,600 in the UK.

This is significantly more than Crux 5 money, though not quite S-Works Crux money, it must be said. Compared to the Crux 5 Expert (£5,999) you get broadly the same things, but with the Fara you get a fully integrated cockpit not a separate system, you get modern 55mm wide tyres on deep and wide gravel rims, internal frame storage (which may not be your thing), a power meter (which probably will be). The Fara frame may be less aero, but I’ll bet overall when you factor in cockpit and rider position, the Norgs have the Yanks beat. You also get ceramic bearings throughout, and dropper post compatibility.

It ain’t a cheap bike that’s for sure, but you're not just paying for a slightly unusual brand name and a handful of rarity points, and you get a package that delivers a ride experience that’s pretty bloody great, too. In a sea of Cruxes and Grails, it’s always kinda fun rocking up to the group ride on a bike from a small Norwegian brand, provided it can cut the mustard.

Verdict

The Fara GR4 really was a pleasant surprise. It looks quite cumbersome and ungainly, but it rides like a dream. Off-road is where it shines, whether that be extended rolling terrain (Kansas, I imagine), or the sharp climbs and rocky gully descents of my local loops; it's taken it all in its stride, all with the bonus of not feeling like a barge on tarmac. It’s thoroughly modern, but without losing sight of the sensible touches that make owning certain bikes a lot less of a headache than others, and for that I really do think it needs applauding in the loudest way.

Ultimately, I think it’s very much in the conversation when discussing the best gravel race bikes out there right now.

Trek has released a brand new generation of its longstanding endurance bike, the Domane, today.

The Domane was introduced back in 2012 as a comfortable, cobbled race machine and featured Trek's IsoSpeed comfort-boosting system, which separated the seat tube from the top tube at the junction of the tubes, along with some bearings and other mechanical parts.

Over the years, this system was made adjustable and also added to the front ends of bikes at the headset to further boost comfort. Disc brake bikes arrived en masse, tyre sizes grew, and the Domane has developed with that technology over the last 14-odd years.

This latest incarnation is the fifth generation of the bike. Over the years, the Domane has been produced with various comfort-boosting features and has long been considered one of the best endurance road bikes.

Now it seems the time has come for Trek to strip things back with this latest release and discontinue the IsoSpeed system.

That's right, as far as we can tell, this is the end for IsoSpeed. Trek hasn't employed it on the new Domane, instead relying on the vibration-damping performance from bigger volume tyres and a new seatpost design wrapped up in a lighter overall package.

We have the technical details below, as well as my first thoughts on the Gen 5 Domane after my first ride with the bike.

I could attempt to sum up the overall design direction of the Domane by saying Trek has dropped the added weight and mechanical complexity of the IsoSpeed system and instead relied on comfort from bigger tyres to do much of the heavy lifting when it comes to smoothing things out.

However, there's a little more to the story than that; this new incarnation of the Domane is interesting and refreshing.

The new frame is lighter and simplified. The IsoSpeed mechanism is gone, as is the storage door in the downtube that the previous gen bike had. Trek says Domane SLR framesets are 305 grams lighter than the previous gen; that's a healthy chunk. Quoted weights for an unpainted frame in M/L size are 835g and 367g for an unpainted fork.

SLR 1x machines are 2.1lbs or just under a kilo lighter than the 'lightest previous generation build'; that is considerable. Where else are we seeing a whole kilo chopped off a new bike compared to the outgoing model?

There's also a new 27.2 round seatpost, designed to flex and damp out vibrations, which is the second piece in the comfort puzzle alongside the bigger tyre clearance of 40mm.

As a result of frame construction, bigger tyres and the new seatpost, Trek says the Domane is within 5% of the previous bike's 'vibrational energy performance' metric when using spec tyres; that's comparing a 32mm tyre on the previous bike wth IsoSpeed and a 35mm tyre on the new frame.

Bikes will come with 35mm tyres, but the frame will have clearance for up to 40mm rubber, an increase over the previous bike's 38mm clearance.

There's also a new 20mm riser handlebar to go with the frame; this may not be so welcome in certain quarters, but for some it might make an already comfy bike even more so, and cleaner-looking if you can drop a headset spacer. There are still full-length fender mounts, and mounting points for top tube and a frame bag.

The carbon-framed Domane SL starts at $2,399.99; 10 models will be available with Shimano and SRAM equipment, rising up to $11,499 for the top-spec SRAM Red / XPLR builds. Trek also claims a very light weight of 6.63kg for the SLR 9 SRAM 1x model with 28mm tyres.

Custom Project One options will also be available, including 124 Project One ICON No. 76 bikes to celebrate the brand's 50th anniversary; that bike comes in at a cool $14,999.

Trek says the Domane will stay the same and features Trek's 'road endurance' geo. Comparing new geo between Gen 4 and 5 bikes, there do seem to have been some small changes in stack and reach numbers across some sizes, possibly for that new riser bar, and an XS-XL size range has been adopted instead of the Gen 4 47-58cm sizing guide.

The new riser bar also adds 20mm of rise at the hood and has a slight back sweep.

Trek has also specced shorter cranks, like the new Cube road bikes that launched this week. XS/S bikes will have 160mm cranks, M-M/L bikes will have 165mm cranks, and L/XL machines will have 170mm cranks.

The Domane frame has a T47 bottom bracket, is UDH-friendly, electronic groupset only, and has a removable front derailleur mount.

I also asked the brand about what would happen regarding continued support for existing IsoSpeed-equipped machines, and it told me that 'IsoSpeed will still be serviced.'

Trek also provided a white paper on the road to dropping the IsoSpeed tech, saying that increasing tyre volume has 'opened the door' to create a lighter and less complex bike.

The brand's concern for this bike was to reduce weight, improve pedalling stiffness and limit vibration power to the rider. Trek defines Vibrational power as the energy transmitted to the rider over rough ground; let's take that to mean 'feedback' or 'vibrations'.

The brand says the 35mm was 0.9 watts slower in terms of aero, but 1.5watts faster in rolling resistance, assuming compared to a 32mm. We found a similar trade-off in our own CN Labs rolling resistance testing.

Frame layup has been changed; the brand quotes a 6% increase according to the Tour Magazine pedalling stiffness test. This apparently places the bike between the Gen 4 Domane and Gen 8 Madone, with 'notably improved' power transfer versus the outgoing bike.

Trek tested the Domane with a force-sensing saddle and bar to compare the Gen 4 and 5 bikes head to head on a rough surface and at speeds from 7- 20 mph. Tyre pressures were set using the Wolf Tooth calculator.

The Gen 5 Domane tests within 5% of the vibrational power of the outgoing bike. In short, based on Trek's testing, the bike is now lighter with an improved frame layup and, with 35mm tyres, transmits a small amount more energy to the rider.

First ride impressions

Trek sent me a Domane SLR 7 AXS in a size M, so I got it prepped and headed out for a ride before the bike launched.

The SLR 7 AXS retails at $8,499 / €7,499 and arrived with a 2x SRAM Force groupset, Bontrager Aeolus Pro 51 wheels with 35mm Bontrager Kwaremont RSL tyres that were set up tubeless; I just added a little extra sealant as they were a bit low.

Rolling out, the first thing that struck me about the bike was that it felt short, and in a medium / 54 equivalent, the Domane has one of, if not the shortest, reach numbers I have seen.

Stack and reach numbers for the bike are 575mm and 374mm. Coupled with the 90mm stem, 40/44cm riser bar and a few spacers under the stem, the bike felt super comfortable.

If you want comfort, the Domane geometry will undoubtedly look after you. I like the fact that when it comes to road machines, Trek just offers the Madone, the pure race bike, and the Domane, the endurance bike with very comfortable geometry. Not an endurance bike trying to be as close as possible to the race bike. On my machine, the two-piece bar and stem also means stem swaps would be simple, and I probably would go for a 100mm stem long term.

What the Domane didn't feel was boring and sluggish; it felt light and responsive out of the saddle, and it felt direct climbing at slow speed. I liked the ride quality; it was a lot more engaging and pleasant to ride than the Cannondale Synapse I tested at the start of the year.

The handling is good, confident, not razor sharp, and I detected a slightly calmer response around a 50kph corner I've ridden my whole life, but it's not slow or sluggish.

On paper, a wider bar with a backward sweep and 20mm rise would not be for me, but it's been executed well by Trek. It works and felt narrower than it was; the rise is also subtle both fit-wise and visually, and I adapted to it very quickly.

At the heart of the Gen 5 Domane, I feel there is quite a zippy, responsive frame. I could also still tuck in and get aero and ended up pondering aero positions and how shorter and taller positions affect them.

The Bontrager Kwaremont RSL tyres aren't a model I'm familiar with, but they use a cotton casing and 320 TPI construction; they felt good. Not dead and boring, which is critical for me on a bike like this. They rolled along nicely and absolutely contributed to smoothing things out; I half found myself imagining how nice they would be in the depths of winter (perish the thought)

On the fact that the IsoSpeed is now gone, I'm totally on board. More than once have I groaned at a corroded, knackered IsoSpeed assembly when working as a mechanic; I like the simplified angle of attack. There's less weight, less to go wrong, and less expense for customers.

Bigger tyres and that more flexible post will be enough, I think, and the ability to tune tyre pressure will bring a lot to the table when it comes to adding comfort.

Hello friendly subscriber.

This week is a big week over on the Cyclingnews Tech YouTube channel. Not only is it my first appearance on the big screen, but more importantly it's for a review of the most aerodynamic bike we've ever tested in the wind tunnel – and we've tested 40 – the Factor One.

As a small show of appreciation, we're giving you exclusive early access to that review.

What's more, in the coming days, we'll also be dropping a behind-the-scenes video from our most recent day the Silverstone wind tunnel, testing road wheels.

• What are the fastest UCI-legal road wheels? Wind tunnel testing the big-name brands and Chinese contenders

Whether for good reasons or bad, the Factor One is certainly a head-turning bike, with its ultra-wide fork, steep seat tube and similarly steep fork blades. Its looks might be polarising, but there's no ambiguity about its racing intentions. It's also the most expensive bike I've ever ridden, at an eye-watering £14,500.

It's a bike that does some things exceptionally well, but as you'll hear in the video below, it does some other things… well... poorly.

To find out what those things are, and for a somewhat comical rundown of what else you can buy for the same money, hit play.

{kiosq_button:center}

As a subscriber, you can also watch our ever-expanding archive of bike reviews over on the Cyclingnews app before anyone else. But if you'd like to head over to YouTube and give us a like and subscribe to help us grow, we'd really appreciate the boost.

And don't forget, you also get access to all of our Cyclingnews Labs testing, unlimited access to our unrivalled racing coverage, and member-exclusive long-read features on the biggest storylines within cycling.

Thanks as ever for your support.

The Factor One has to be one of the most talked-about bikes to launch in years.

It first broke cover at the Criterium du Dauphiné in 2025, and very quickly broke our small corner of the internet with its wild time-trial-esque design, extremely wide fork and chainstays, and bayonet fork with razor-thin leading edge.

Less than a day later, it looked as though it was going to be banned by the UCI, who announced a rule governing how wide forks and chainstays could be, but I later learned that Factor knew about the impending rule change and designed the bike right up to the legal limit.

It won a stage of the Dauphiné a few days later, and was then raced at the subsequent Tour de France by Israel-Premier Tech. And to cap it off, a pre-production prototype tested extremely well in the Cyclingnews aero bikes wind tunnel test, both with and without a rider, as you'll see in more detail below.

Soon after, it launched officially with an emphasis on its progressive geometry. In fact, the only thing bigger than the fork clearance was head engineer Graham Shrive's presentation on that matter. I'll get into that later, but in simple terms the bike is designed with a modern racing position in mind; further forward, with shorter cranks, narrower bars and bigger tyres.

It also launched with claims of being faster than the Tarmac SL8 – which our own testing data agrees with but Specialized's does not – and at a price that is sure to make most wallets wince.

In the UK, a frameset (with handlebar and seatpost) is £6,920, and full builds start at £11,056 (Shimano Ultegra). 'Standard' builds top out at £13,419.00 with Campagnolo Super Record.

I was sent the model equipped with SRAM Red to review (with power meter), priced at £13,082. However, it also came with the £506 optional extra CeramicSpeed OSPW system, as well as the not-currently-specced Black Inc 62 Hyper wheels, which alone fetch £3,799 (£1000 more than the 'standard' Sixty Two wheels).

To my maths, that makes this build £14,588 (or £1,000 less with the 'standard' Sixty Two wheels).

Design and aesthetics

To begin this section, it's pertinent to revisit the motivations that drove its creation. For years, Head Engineer Graham Shrive had wanted to design a bike that really pushed the envelope, but the brand's founder – then CEO – Rob Gitelis didn't think the Factor brand was ready to put something like this out into the world.

Through its sponsorship of the Australian Olympic Squad, the development of the Hanzo Track saw them unearth plenty of aero gains. Then the UCI's rules changed in 2023 governing how the fork and down tube could be designed together. In 2024, our original round of aero bike testing proved that the Ostro VAM was not only competitive but a leader in the 'superbike' space both in terms of weight and aero. With all those things combined, Gitelis decided it was time.

Concurrently, the brand was a sponsor of the Israel-Premier Tech team, who, like the rest of the pro peloton, were slowly shifting their positions to this modern consensus. Saddles were being slammed forwards to get over the bottom bracket and rotate the body to lower the front end, shorter cranks were fitted to keep the hip angle open, longer stems swapped in to accommodate the newly shortened reach, narrower bars added for aerodynamics, and tyre sizes grew for comfort, grip and rolling resistance improvements.

Shrive says this led to riders running stems that were so long that they were unsafe, and it put their centre of gravity too high and too far forward on the bike, meaning any sudden braking came with an increased risk of an over-the-bars crash.

Therefore, he designed the ONE's geometry with this in mind, and the result is that across all sizes, the reach of the bike has grown by 20mm. In my size 58cm, that means a reach of 421mm, which is 19mm longer than an equivalent Tarmac SL9, which I have also been testing.

To offset the fit implications of the longer reach, the seat tube angle is now steeper. On all but the 47cm frame (where it's 1°), the seat tube is now 2° steeper than the OSTRO, at 75.5°. Some basic trigonometry tells me that at my saddle height (785mm), that puts me 27mm further forward, easily offsetting the extra reach.

At the rear, the chainstay lengths are unchanged, so the distance from the bottom bracket to the rear hub is still 405mm (except the 58cm, where it's 408mm). This is shorter than most of the competition, and lends itself to an agile ride, albeit there's nuance to this in the bigger sizes that I'll get to shortly.

To account for the trend towards bigger tyres (and to a point, shorter cranks), the bottom bracket drop is now 5mm bigger (thus it sits lower) on all sizes.

The rest of the differences against the OSTRO VAM are size dependent. To account for handling goals and toe overlap concerns at the smaller end of the size run, Factor has kept a similar wheelbase to the OSTRO VAM (technically it's 3 - 4mm longer), steepened the head tube angle, and offset this by reducing the fork rake (in the 47cm frame, Factor has changed the fork rake by a quite significant 9mm).

The goal of this is that toe clearance (or the removal of toe overlap) isn't solely achieved by slackening the head tube angle so much that it ruins handling. As such, smaller riders should get a bike that handles as well as bigger riders. I've been riding a 58cm so can't verify it, but the logic holds.

To compare that again to the Tarmac – the Specialized doesn't come in a 47, so I'll compare the 52cm frames – the head tube angle is 73.3° on the ONE, 0.8° steeper than the 72.5° of the Tarmac. However, both have 58mm of trail because the Tarmac's fork has a 4mm greater rake (aka offset).

All that is to say, this should make the handling of the ONE slightly sharper than an equivalent Tarmac, especially combined with 5mm shorter chainstays and a 1mm shorter wheelbase.

At the other end of the size run, though, the increased reach has mostly carried over into the wheelbase. It's now 16mm longer than the Ostro VAM in the 56 and 58cm frames (which I have here). That makes it more stable, but it does lose some of that agility that made the OSTRO VAM frame special.

To continue the Tarmac comparisons, the One is longer and lower (19mm more reach and 4mm lower stack in my size 58cm). The Tarmac's head tube is marginally steeper, with a shorter trail, meaning the front end feels a little more nimble, which is no doubt also aided by the Tarmac's lighter weight.

But added to this, the Tarmac's chainstays are only 2mm longer (again, we're comparing the 58cm frame), and the wheelbase is 16mm shorter. In tight corners, this definitely bears out in the Tarmac's favour, but the ONE makes up the ground in other places.

Rounding off this comparison, since the Tarmac comes specced with a -15mm offset seatpost (you can change it) and the ONE comes with a straight post (you can also change this), I can get 42mm further forward on the ONE, which makes for a big difference in how I feel when I actually ride the bike. I can obviously also slide the saddle back to undo this, and as I'll explain below, I tried a few different positions.

Before I get into that, though, let's just talk about some of the other standout design points, because aside from all these geometry shifts, there's some serious engineering going on here.

Primarily, that's the way the front of the bike is put together. It uses a bayonet-style head tube (where the steerer tube doesn't travel through the head tube, but rather in front of it and clamps top and bottom); a design popularised by the Cervélo S5 and also now found on the Colnago Y1Rs, but the leading edge of the ONE is insanely narrow, even by the aforementioned bikes' standards.

The way the fork mounts into place is a little complicated, to the point that Factor has a 'V2' in its manual that simplifies the original instructions.

Thankfully for the mechanics out there, no specialist tools are needed (unless you count a hollow socket, but a ring spanner works in its place).

There's a rather large 'tension rod' that sits vertically and is tightened from the bottom to first add preload and also hold everything together. In my time with the bike, I experienced a loss of preload on multiple occasions, creating that unnerving feeling of a loose headset.

Loosening and re-tightening to add preload got me through the few months I had with the bike, but not without the final attempt shearing off part of the head of the bolt, meaning I was then unable to disassemble it for a proper fix. I'm well aware a paying customer would just take it back to a shop for a fix here, probably when the headset loosened the first time, and so a proper disassembly-reassembly would likely remove this issue entirely.

Where the ONE really changes the script, however, is where the cockpit clamps into place. Instead of mounting at the point of the steering axis, it clamps into place approximately 4cm further forward, downwards onto the top of the fork using four bolts (which are later hidden by a carbon cover).

The steering axis, and thus the 'lever' you turn when steering the bike, is still normal, so handling feels familiar, but this design means less distance between your hands and where the cockpit meets the bike, which makes it much stiffer. This adds to the directness of the steering, but it has pretty dire implications for comfort, as I'll get into later.

The rear brake hose (and Di2 cables where necessary, but my bike was wireless) routes vertically out of the top of the head tube, and is then directed around a tight corner forwards into a hole at the rear of the one-piece cockpit, before being directed left or right depending on which way round you run your brakes. The front brake hose travels entirely through the fork, and thus exits slightly further forward before being bent around another tight corner to the opposite lever.

Both of these are pretty difficult manoeuvres. That much was already clear from the state of the hoses in my test bike – they'd clearly been ravaged by pliers or mole grips to force them where they needed to go.

I got a taste of doing it myself when I needed to swap the bars from the size 1 (90mm stem / 110mm effective length) the bike was accidentally shipped with, to the size 3 (110mm stem / 130mm effective length) I needed, and pliers really are the only way to get the hoses to bend where they need to go. I'm just glad we're no longer using cable-operated brakes, as this would be on par with the Venge Vias's infamous rim brakes.

The other big design story (both literally and figuratively) is the wide fork, and despite having thousands of words on geometry already, there's actually not a huge amount to say.

Somewhat obviously, they draw from learnings made in the Hanzo Time Trial and Track development. Specifically, learnings about tyre wake and how the disrupted airflow acts downstream, and how the fork leg spacing helps to smooth the airflow before it then goes on to hit the frame and rider's legs.

Factor says it tested multiple fork leg spacing iterations to see which was fastest, and settled on a fork that is 114mm at its widest point; a mere millimetre under the UCI limit of 115mm.

The crown of the fork protrudes forward from the head tube to the point that it creates a little shelf. I could probably sit a small mascot on here like truck drivers who tie toys to their grill, but that would likely upset Shrive and the aero motivations for making it this way.

The depth of the fork blades no doubt aids the bike's ability to 'sail' in crosswinds, but what's less discussed is that Shrive intentionally changed the shape so that the leading edge was more vertical, because that makes it more perpendicular to the airflow. Most forks sit at an angle loosely in line with the head tube angle plus a little bit of offset, but the ONE's fork actually kicks forward at the top before coming down more vertically toward the axle. This really changes the aesthetic of the bike – and I'm still not sure I'm over that – but from an aerodynamics standpoint, it reduces the (horrible phrase alert) 'wetted length', which is the length of material in contact with the air, and improves the effectiveness of what is.

Performance

Clearly, a lot is going on with the design of this bike, and there's a hell of a price tag to boot, but how does it actually feel to ride, as a bicycle, on the road?

Well, the biggest surprise to me when I first hopped onto one is that it felt… normal. Save for a headset issue on my first test bike, which essentially gave it indexed steering, the Factor One rides and handles a lot like any other race bike.

The primary affectors of how the bike rides – its geometry, its material, its touchpoints – are all fairly normal. I've already spent 1000+ words on the geometry so I won't go there again, but aside from a seat tube angle that puts you further forward on the bike, and a wheelbase that's longer, everything else is pretty much the same.

The forward-protruding fork makes the head tube angle look steep, but in this size, it's the same as the OSTRO and 0.2° different from the Tarmac. The trail is similar, the chainstay length is similar, the stack is similar.

So if you came here to learn if riding the Factor One was going to feel foreign compared to your current race bike, there's a good chance that it won't (assuming that race bike isn't from the 1970s).

However, before you rush off to remortgage your house, 'normal' doesn't automatically make it great. In fact, despite the price tag, there are a lot of things the Factor ONE doesn't do very well. Whether that actually matters to you will depend on what you want from it.

If you're considering the Factor One as your only bike, I think you'll grow weary very quickly. To peddle a metaphor, it's akin to having a car designed for track meets as your daily commuter, or to borrow one from my colleague Will, using a fish filleting knife as your general-purpose knife. I will cut up a pizza, but it won't be the best tool for that job.

The primary reason for this is that it's ridiculously stiff. I'd love to put some numbers to this, but Factor chose not to be involved in our road bike stiffness tests earlier this year, so I'm left to infer from feeling. And the main 'feeling' is a lack thereof, because every time I ride it for more than about 40 minutes, my hands go numb. This is probably partly due to my weight being further forward and thus more supported by my hands, but there's no getting around how insanely stiff the bike - and specifically the cockpit - is.

In my entire history of riding other bikes, I can recall one instance of hitting a bump and my hands coming off the bars, causing me to almost crash. It's happened three times on this bike. I don't think that's a lack of attention on my part either; the jolt through the front end of the bike is so much more severe than I'm used to that smaller bumps that I'm otherwise happy to ride over are enough to dislodge my hands.

I've ridden the One with two different wheelsets (the 'normal' Sixty Two and the Hyper Sixty Two), two cockpits (110 and 130mm), with the Black Inc stock bar tape, without bar tape at all (through necessity for one ride) and with Fizik's Comfortfeel 3.5mm tape. The stiffness or numbness hasn't abated in any case.

Of course, I'm framing it as a problem, and it must be said that the One can accept 32mm tyres, but that stiffness has its benefits too. Yanking on the bars in an ugly-face, all-out sprint, the difference is night and day compared to pretty much anything else out there. Have you ever picked up an old smartphone and wondered how the hell you ever lived with it? That's kind of how I feel when I try to sprint on anything else now. The responsiveness in the pedals feels marginally better, but the feeling through the bars is ridiculously good.

It carries over into climbing too. The Factor ONE weighs 8.2kg in this setup (with pedals and computer, no bottles) but has the sprightly feel you get on a 6kg lightweight bike because of how the stiffness translates to the road. I doubt for a second it's actually undoing the 1.5kg deficit it has to the O2 VAM when it comes to a hill climb, but from a pure sensations point of view, it's a nice thing to have on a bike that can also then barrel along a flat road with ease.

And 'barrel along' it can. The ONE is a bike that enables the en vogue modern, progressive aero position, and for that I really like it. Partly because it lets me open up my hip angle and prevent pinching of my hip flexors, which has long caused me discomfort, but also because I get to ride in that racy, forward, purposeful position that has long-ago been shown to be more aero.

I've always been quite quad dominant in my pedalling technique too, and I feel this lets me play to that strength. This is also the first test bike I've had in years where I've not had to slam the saddle as far forward on the rails as it'll go, and I buy into the notion that a longer front-centre reduces the over-the-bar risk, even if it's not something I've ever really worried about before.

The downsides to this position mean I now have more trouble with my neck, because rotating my body forwards means my neck has to compensate in the opposite direction if I'm still to see where I'm going. I had it especially badly on the Ridley Noah Fast 3, but I seem to be in the minority in having this problem, so I'll brush it aside as a me problem for now.

But this all leads to the ONE feeling really at home. I'm loath to say it 'feels' fast, because so many other factors could come into play on any given day and we have the wind tunnel data to prove that it is – keep reading for that – but it 'feels' happy. The longer wheelbase adds high-speed stability, and where I found the Ridley Noah was buffeted by the wind quite easily with its deep wheels and mega head tube, the Factor is stable and surefooted. The switch to the Hyper wheels adds a slight twitchiness to the front end by dint of its reduced weight, but with either wheelset fitted, the bike was quite content ticking along at speed, even when the going got a bit blustery. And once I'd put the longer-reach cockpit on, I could sit in a nice long, low, narrow position and tick at speed nicely.

When the going gets twisty, however, I can't help but shake the feeling that the handling is actually comparatively slow in comparison to the Ostro Vam, Tarmac SL8 and SL9. I'd add the Noah Fast 3.0 to that mix too, but the Noah Fast I've ridden was a smaller frame size, so it's not a perfectly apples-to-apples comparison - not least since the Ridley geo is even longer and lower than this, with a slacker seat tube angle.

The extremely stiff cockpit kind of helps to offset this and give the impression of precision, and it goes extremely well on fast, sweeping descents where the roads are smooth because the front triangle flex that can cause vagueness under high load – like you get on the Y1Rs – isn't an issue here. But on tighter corners and hairpins, I'd often miss the apex. Overall, I just struggled to develop the intuition for how the bike would handle like I could on the OSTRO VAM, or like I can on the SL9. This is exacerbated when the road surface gets a little rougher, as is common here in the UK, as every bump is felt through the hands, making steering inputs more difficult.

Of course, I'm splitting hairs here, but it sort of bears out in the geometry charts in my frame size too. I think riders on smaller frames will probably feel differently, because in that comparison against other race bikes, the ONE's gets a steeper head tube and pairs it with a short wheelbase, but in my size, it's a different proposition with a longer wheelbase and no meaningful change to head tube angle and trail. Thanks to the position change, there's perhaps a little too much weight through my hands too. It's not a dealbreaker though. As I say, I'm splitting hairs and comparing an elite bike against other elite bikes, and it's perhaps something that I could reduce by playing around with more tyre sizes, different cockpits shifting my weight balance around to find a sweet spot.

Aero performance - wind tunnel test data

Cyclingnews subscribers will already be familiar with this, but the ONE can lay claim to the title of being the fastest bike we've ever tested in the wind tunnel, both with and without a rider. That's against a cohort of over 30 high-end road race bikes, and includes pretty much all the big players from Specialized, Trek, Cannondale, Colnago, Cervelo and more.

The graph above shows the CdA (the measurement of how aerodynamic something is) at seven different wind angles, with 0° at the centre being a direct headwind, and a lower measurement being better or more aerodynamic.

The Factor One is highlighted, and it's clear that its aero credentials come to the fore as the wind angle increases.

Using the CdA from each of those wind angles and averaging them out, we then calculate the number of watts needed to overcome the aerodynamic drag of both the Factor One and dozens of other bikes that have been through the same test.

We use an old, basic bike as the comparison, and can see that the Factor One tops the list, saving 40.28 watts. Perhaps more usefully, it's two watts more aerodynamic (at 40km/h) than the next best bike.

With a rider on the bike, things shift a little, but the Factor is still within 0.04w of the top spot, which is well within the error margin of the test. In this test, it was 27.53W more aero than our baseline bike with a rider, and 7.9W more aero than the Tarmac SL8 (we're yet to test the SL9).

And in our third aero test, we swapped out the stock wheels for a 'control' wheel - the Enve SES 6.7.

This allows us to see how each bike compares with the exact same wheel-tyre combo, isolating the aero differences to the frame, fork, handlebar and so on.

In that test, we once again have Factor atop the tree with a sizeable step to the next best on test.

To read the full breakdown, head to our wind tunnel aero bikes shootout or our Factor One wind tunnel deep-dive.

Value

The price of this build is £14,588, or $15,788. Minus £1000 or $1100 for the 'standard' Black Inc Sixty Two wheelset.

That's £90 cheaper (or oddly, $288 more expensive) than a Colnago Y1Rs specced with the same groupset and a similar wheelset upgrade (Enve 4.5 SES wheels). But it's also £2,589 more than an off-the-peg S-Works Tarmac SL9.

To contextualise just how much money the Factor One will cost, here's a look at what else you could buy. You could buy a Tarmac SL8 Expert - Ultegra Di2 (£5,499), a Crux 5 Expert Force XPLR (£5999) and an Epic Hardtail (Comp, S-1000 AXS and Sid SL)

Alternatively, if you wanted a top-tier race product, you could buy a Canyon Aeroad CFR (£8029) and still have enough to buy that aforementioned brand new Crux 5.

Or to put another spin on it, if you're buying it because you want to get better at racing, you could buy that aforementioned Canyon Aeroad CFR, and then spend £300 a month on a support network of various coaches for 21 months to help you find significantly more than the few watts you're saving here.

Verdict

The Factor One is a singularly minded, out-and-out race bike, and for that type of riding it's really good, but it's an incredibly expensive tool for a specific purpose, not a versatile bike. It's the drywall screwdriver in the toolkit; brilliant at its job, and technically capable as an impact driver, but it'd soon get tiresome.

The handling might not feel quite as sharp as the OSTRO did, but it's still really fun to ride when you're trying to go fast. Racing, KOM hunting, or simply chasing your mates on it is a hoot, and the geometry allows that 'modern' position. It's longer, lower, but with a steepness to the seat tube that doesn't just stretch me out, instead letting me really get over the bottom bracket, drop my elbows and ride it hard.

As a result, it's a bike that holds pace on the flat as well as anything else out there, and the stiffness means sprinting is also better than anything else out there.

But the big takeaway is that it's so stiff that riding it every day becomes tiresome. Even after adding plush bar tape and swapping to my favourite saddle, I feel battered if I go for more than a couple of hours, not to mention my numb hands and pothole incidents.

As such, this is more a race tool than an everyday machine. And that throws up another issue in that it has such a divisive aesthetic that plenty of its potential buyers wouldn't actually feel comfortable turning up to their local race on one.

The ability to get into the modern position is really good. But the Noah Fast offers this too.

It's not a bike I'd overall recommend, unless for a very specific purpose.

A new Cube aero road bike has been hiding in plain sight since June this year. That model, along with a host of other new machines, has now been officially released by the brand.

Both Tour de France races are over for the year, and hot, lazy August days at times feel like downtime before the excitement begins to build again for the year's final big races like the Vuelta a España and the World Championships.

But Cube is already looking even further ahead to 2027 and has pretty much announced its full bike lineup for next year, including the mystery aero bike we have wanted more information on for months.

We saw Team TotalEnergies with the new Cube aero bike at the Tour-Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes back in June, and the team has raced with it ever since.

That bike was announced today as the latest version of the Litening Aero C:68X; it's lighter, more aero and, in context, really rather 'cheap'. We have more details on Cube's range-topper below.

Since this is the first 2027 range news we've released, and possibly because we're excited for any news on next year's bikes, we've included an overview of some of the other models on offer from Cube as well.

The new CUBE Litening Aero C:68X

There is no model name change for the Litening Aero C:68X, but the brand's range-topper has undergone some changes in this latest update.

Cube hasn't gone into fine details regarding the design process for the new machine, but we've got the key points here.

The frame and fork are now 150 grams lighter and have 34mm tyre clearance. The steering forkstop pin has also gone, providing a bigger range of movement from the handlebars.

Geometry also remains the same, with no big changes taking place between the new and outgoing models, although a size 62cm frame has now been introduced.

The frame is said to be lighter, stiffer and more aero than the outgoing model, with a quoted aerodynamic saving of 6.2 watts. That's all the detail we have on that front for now, though I have asked the brand for more information.

There's a fresh carbon seatpost which is said to be 10% more comfortable, and that area of the bike is the easiest to differentiate between the old and new models. The new bike has a seat tube / top tube junction that drops away at an angle; look to that area if you are spotting the new bike.

There is also a new integrated handlebar specifically for the bike. Cube says the IC Aero Max cockpit helps put the rider into a more aero position. We got a little more info on the bar, and Cube told us there are palm support dents on the tops, special bar tape cutouts for where the tape is designed to end, and a little bit of flare to the drops. The brand is also speccing narrower bars and shorter cranks on 2027 bikes.

Prices for the bike begin at £4,999, but top-spec Dura-Ace (claimed 7.1kg weight) or SRAM Red builds - with Newmen Streem carbon wheels, Schwalbe Pro One Aero tyres, and the Aero Max cockpit - will set you back just £7,499 or €7,299. Still a chunk of money, but a very attractive price point in this top-tier aero bike category.

The lightest bike in the range isn't even the most expensive; the 6.9kg Orbit model with SRAM Red XPLR 1X drivetrain comes in at £6,999 / €6,999.

Road and gravel bikes

It's not all 7K Dura-Ace race bikes today; Cube has made some changes to its gravel and more affordable road lines too.

The Attain endurance bike range has received attention; specs have been strengthened across aluminium and carbon models, and a carbon frame model now starts at £2,500 with Shimano 105 Di2, carbon wheels and an integrated handlebar, which sounds like a competitively priced package that should rival bikes like the Canyon Endurace.

The Nuroad gravel range has also had an update, and another contender for one of the best specced gravel bikes around is the Nuroad C:62 SLT (pictured above). It's one of the few bikes on the market right now with an SRAM Red XPLR groupset for under £7,000.

Coming in at 8kg with Red XPLR, Newmen Streem wheels and Schwalbe G ONE RS Pro tyres, its RRP is £6,499. It also has mudguard mounts, rejoice!

Mountain and hybrid bikes

Cube's range could be called comprehensive; there are a lot of bikes. When it comes to mountain bikes, the brand has resurrected a previously discontinued model and streamlined a big range.

The Fritzz was discontinued back in 2018, but after a hiatus the brand has reworked and returned it to the range as an Enduro bike which will replace the Stereo One77 model. We don't have full details on the suspension and frame angles, but the bike will sport 170mm of travel, use a high pivot design and come with a mullet wheel setup as stock.

The sizable Stereo range, which until now consisted of 14 models, has been streamlined to a 150mm / 145mm travel bike and two carbon frame options. A Shimano XT-equipped bike will come in at £2,199, further reinforcing the Cube value offering.

Finally, whilst various hardtail and hybrid bikes have also received updates, there's a brand new model in the shape of the carbon-framed e-bike, the Supreme Hybrid C:62 deluxe. Both versions of the bike have a Gates carbon drive, integrated lighting, fenders, frame lock, kickstand and luggage rack. Prices start at £4,899 for this.