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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, me (Josh Croxton).

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

And with that, thanks for reading!

They also focus on offering more detailed analysis of your performance than other platforms, such as Zwift and MyWhoosh and are generally used by riders whose priority is training and data or who don't need an immersive virtual training world.

They go about this in rather different ways, though. While TrainingPeaks delivers workouts via its TrainingPeaks Virtual app, TrainerRoad is more old-school, with a simpler ramp-based graph interface.

Where TrainerRoad scores, though, is its AI-driven workout selection. It also caters for missed workouts and changed schedules via its Train Now functionality.

TrainingPeaks was bought by Garmin in July 2026. It’s not clear how this will affect the app in future, but for the moment it continues to operate as normal.

Garmin may be looking to strengthen its own indoor training offering, which is currently delivered via the niche Tacx app.

TrainerRoad vs TrainingPeaks: Approach

Both TrainerRoad and TrainingPeaks are much more hardcore than apps such as Zwift and Rouvy. They aim to offer objective-driven, structured training based on goal setting and planned activities to meet your goals.

TrainerRoad provides AI-driven training, with its app assessing your performance after each workout and tuning your future activity schedule based on this. The assessment is across multiple aspects of your fitness, not just FTP. This, it claims, gives a more precise assessment of your strengths and weaknesses and allows it to more accurately target its workouts.

As well as structured, scheduled plans, there’s also the Train Now option, which allows you to fit in workouts around your other activities in a more flexible way.

TrainingPeaks is more focused on its structured plans, which offer less flexibility than TrainerRoad. There’s a wide range of plans available, but these are extra-cost items on top of the basic access.

TrainingPeaks doesn’t just work with cyclists; it offers training for other endurance sports and also strength training. There’s the option to work with in-person coaches to manage your training.

TrainerRoad vs TrainingPeaks: User interface

TrainerRoad offers a fairly basic user interface while you work out, consisting of the classic ramp profiles on a black background, with stats on your performance. There’s no interactivity with other users. You do have the option to ride its workouts on other platforms, though – see below.

TrainingPeaks offers a virtual world with a similar, although less finished, look to Zwift or MyWhoosh. This can be explored solo, but you can also join up with other riders, join group rides and chat in-app.

Ride physics is simulated, so you’ll get a boost from drafting, and headwinds can slow you down. As with Zwift, there are virtual riders too, and you can upload your own GPX files to ride your own routes.

There are the same ramps in intensity as with TrainerRoad, just presented in a more visually appealing way. If you want to, you can select Focus mode and switch off the virtual simulation, or Zen mode and ride alone in the virtual world.

TrainingPeaks Virtual also offers a range of different races at different performance levels, adding an element of competition to your riding.

TrainerRoad vs TrainingPeaks: Workout alternatives

Both TrainerRoad and TrainingPeaks allow you to work out on other platforms, although you will need a separate account for the second app.

TrainingPeaks workouts can be ridden on Zwift, which offers a greater depth of immersion than its TrainingPeaks Virtual environment and all the Zwift add-ons such as power-ups, as well as a larger user base to ride with or race against.

You’ll need both a TrainingPeaks and a Zwift account, but then workouts in your TrainingPeaks calendar will appear in your Zwift workout schedule and, once you’ve completed a workout, it will automatically be synced back to TrainingPeaks for analysis and progress tracking.

TrainerRoad offers a feed out to Zwift too, so that scheduled TrainerRoad workouts appear in your Zwift account and you can ride them there, with data then transferred back to TrainerRoad for progression tracking and analysis.

TrainerRoad vs TrainingPeaks: Pricing

A TrainerRoad annual membership is priced in US dollars and annually works out at $17.45 monthly equivalent, but you can also pay monthly, which costs $21.99 per month. TrainerRoad offers a 30-day money-back period.

TrainingPeaks costs the equivalent of $11.25 per month if you pay for a year’s Premium access. You can also pay quarterly, which increases the price to $16.33 per month equivalent, while paying month-by-month costs $19.95. Again, there’s a 30-day money-back period.

But with TrainingPeaks, you also need to factor in the price of its training plans, which are not included in the basic price. Its 12-week Base and FTP Development plan, for example, costs $5, while the VO2max Booster costs $20. Other plans can cost as much as $500.

TrainingPeaks has the option to work with a live coach to develop a custom training plan. Three tiers of interactivity range in price from $149 per month to $359 per month. The lowest-priced option puts limits on your communication with your coach, while the most expensive option offers unlimited interactions and feedback on every workout.

TrainerRoad vs TrainingPeaks: Which should you choose?

TrainerRoad’s adaptive training and its sophisticated metrics will be attractive to cyclists wanting some flexibility in their objective-driven training. It’s a solitary experience, though, and it takes a certain mental outlook to follow a plan when the workouts are presented as ramp charts only; although riding on another platform does offer a more interesting alternative, it has to be said.

There’s more opportunity for interactivity with other users and with coaches in TrainingPeaks, which some may find more engaging. This does increase the cost of access, though, so TrainingPeaks is likely to be more expensive to use. Its analysis is also less sophisticated than that of TrainerRoad, but it does cover a wider range of sports.

For example, Netcompany-Ineos recently announced it would use an AI-based aero testing app next year.

AI use is commonplace now, and cyclists are using it to their advantage. Following suit, I decided to see what AI could do for me.

My end goal was for AI to generate a bespoke training plan that could return me to my peak level of fitness, whatever that was. Simple, or so I thought. I wanted to learn about customising an AI training plan based on my own historical data, and improve my skills along the way.

The first challenge was choosing a platform. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Microsoft Copilot were all AI assistants that I investigated.

Some AI engines or apps are free, some aren't. Free versions limit what you can do and, in this case, how many files you can upload to be analysed. I paid a subscription fee as I was always going to need to use my full training history. After researching the different platforms, I settled on Claude because it could read and analyse my CSV files directly.

With Claude chosen, I paid for a subscription and began to see what it could do.

I decided to ask it to build me a 12-week indoor training plan using this simple prompt:

"Build me a 12-week indoor cycling training plan of between 7 and 10 hours a week. I can ride 5 times a week, but not on Thursday."

Claude then produced the plan below for me:

The plan is perfectly acceptable, but it's limited. It offers nothing beyond what you can find in cycling training manuals or on hundreds of websites online.

The plan falls short because it is not based on my own data. Without access to my training data, asking AI to build me a plan will always result in something this generic.

Granted, you can input parameters such as how many rides you intend to do each week, how many hours you have available for training, and which days suit you best, but beyond that, the output will always be limited.

Data is key

To create a bespoke plan and something tailored to my requirements, I realised that I needed to provide AI with my training data. Only with this could AI produce a bespoke plan. And for that, I knew where to go:

My Strava account held almost all my training data, and with the functionality to download it, I could then take the relevant files and have AI analyse them and utilise my training and riding history.

[Ed. Since undertaking this project, but prior to publishing, Strava launched its MCP connector, allowing direct plugin to AI assistants, enabling the sharing of historic datam, plus future data in perpetuity].

A data side quest

However, I had to undertake a slight side quest first. Strava did not have all my data. My early years of training results were held on spreadsheets, so I had to get these uploaded into Strava using a third-party app.

I reformatted the spreadsheets got the data uploaded into Strava, using a third-party go between. I then requested my complete set of training data from Strava. An email link soon arrived with a 1.7 GB archive, though I only needed one file from it.

The summary file was called "activities.csv" and contained enough data to enable AI to produce a tailored plan for me.

To download your own data in Strava, go to Settings > My Account > Download or Delete Your Account, then select Request Your Archive. Strava then emails you a link to the data.

Only activities.csv is needed, so there's no need to upload the whole thing. If you have many years of riding and the file is too large to upload, delete the oldest rows, but keep your best season so the AI can compare against it.

A word of caution: activities.csv includes heart-rate data, which is personal health information. I recommend checking your AI platform's privacy and data settings before you upload it.

Power figures only appear in activities.csv files for rides recorded with a power meter or smart trainer. Without them, the AI's FTP estimates and power targets will be much less reliable, so bear this in mind too.

AI and prompts

The next challenge was writing the correct prompts to finesse my training programme. My first attempt was too simple. After some research, I learned that a good prompt needs four key components.

The first component is the persona, which assigns the AI a specific role, for example: "You are an elite cycling WorldTour coach."

The second component is the specific task, such as "Using my uploaded data, analyse and assess my current level and create me a 12-week training plan that gets me to and surpasses my previous best cycling fitness levels."

The third component is the context: including any important details, which in this case were the days I could train and for how many hours.

The fourth and final component is the format, or how I would like the answer to look.

The prompt I decided to use to build my specific training plan was as follows:

"You are an elite cycling WorldTour coach. Using my uploaded data in the spreadsheet only, analyse and assess my current level and create a 12-week training plan that gets me to and surpasses my previous best cycling fitness levels."

"I have 10 hours per week for training and can ride 5 times a week, with the exception of Thursday."

"Sessions in the week must not last longer than 90 minutes. I would like a detailed session plan, detailing how long each session should last, power output and heart rate."

I also find that going to a separate Claude chat window and asking it to suggest its own prompt is a good way to learn the phrasing and terminology that Claude itself understands. You can iterate on its suggestion more easily than create your own from scratch, and the wording is often less vague than anything I would generate myself.

I later refined these prompts into a shorter version that you can reuse:

"You are an elite WorldTour cycling coach. Using only the rides in my attached Strava activities.csv, assess my current level against my all-time best (estimated FTP, and best 20-minute and 60-minute power), then create a 12-week plan starting [date] to beat it."

"I have 10 hours a week over 5 rides. I can't ride on Thursday or [second rest day], and weekday rides must be 90 minutes or less. Give me my power and heart-rate zones, then a table for each week showing day, duration, session, target watts, and target heart rate. Include recovery weeks and FTP tests in weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12, and be honest about how realistic the goal is."

Before building the plan, the AI assessed my data. It estimated that my FTP had fallen from about 325–329 watts at my peak (December 2021 to February 2022) to about 260 watts, a drop of around 20%, and that my weekly riding had halved from 8–10 hours to about 4.5 hours. That told me straight away that this plan would be built around me, not a textbook.

The output, generated by the first of the two prompts above, was a very detailed plan with tailored power and heart-rate targets. The table below shows Week 1; the other 11 weeks are just as detailed.

The plan is not fixed. After each FTP test, I can give the AI the result and ask it to recalculate my zones and update the remaining weeks, so the plan keeps pace with my fitness. With the newly added MCP Connector, this could even be automated.

Example Block 1: Rebuild (FTP 260 W)

Prompts you may find useful

Goal Planning

This prompt gets the AI to act as your personal cycling coach and build a 12-week plan that fits around your life and moves you towards a goal, such as beating your best FTP. It is a fuller version of the short prompt above, giving you more control over the output.

"You are an elite WorldTour cycling coach who builds periodised, power-based plans for time-limited amateurs. Using the 'Ride' and 'Virtual Ride' activities in my attached Strava activities.csv, create a progressive 12-week plan to [goal, e.g., beat my previous best FTP]. I have [X] hours a week across [X] rides; I can't ride on [days], and weekday sessions are capped at [X] minutes.

Remember to be specific in your demands; a degree of nuance and experience is needed here, and if you choose to experiment, the more you do, the better you will get.

I asked the AI to give me:

• An assessment of my current level against my all-time best, with key numbers. Estimate FTP from Weighted Average Power in 20–60-minute rides, and include weekly hours, load, and consistency over the last 12 weeks.
• A zones table: % of FTP, watts, and heart rate.
• One table per week: day, duration, session (with intervals and recoveries), target watts, target heart rate, and weekly total hours. Include recovery weeks and FTP tests in weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12, with week 12 a taper that ends in the final test.
• Up to five rules on fuelling, adjusting when fatigued, and updating zones after each test.
• Be realistic about what 12 weeks can achieve.

Recovery Assessment

This prompt uses your data to check whether you've been riding too hard too often over the past month without enough easy days or rest between hard rides. The aim is to catch fatigue before it leads to poor performance, illness, or burnout.

"You are a cycling physiologist specialising in recovery and fatigue monitoring. Using the 'Ride' and 'Virtual Ride' activities in my attached Strava activities.csv file from the last 30 days, find the days where my recovery was probably not enough. My FTP is [X] W, and my threshold heart rate is [X] bpm. Classify each ride as hard (above 85% of FTP), moderate, or easy (below 70% of FTP), using Weighted Average Power, Relative Effort, and heart rate, and treat a heart rate of 0 as not recorded. Flag hard days back-to-back, more than three hard rides in any seven days, and heart rate out of line with power."

I also asked my AI coach to give me:

• A 30-day calendar table: date, ride, duration, Weighted Average Power, and Hard/Moderate/Easy/Rest.
• Each day where recovery was not enough, with a one-line reason.
• My hard-to-easy ratio compared with 80/20.
• Three changes to my weekly structure.

Event Preparation

This prompt checks whether your recent riding has prepared you for a specific event, such as a sportive, road race, or time trial, and tells you what to work on in the four weeks before it.

"You are an experienced cycling coach who prepares riders for races and sportives. Look at my rides from the last 12 weeks in the attached Strava activities.csv file. I'm riding [event, e.g., a 120 km sportive with 2,000 m of climbing] on [date]; my goal is [goal, e.g., finish under 4 hours], and my FTP is about [X] W. Tell me whether my training so far has prepared me for this event.

I also asked my AI coach to give me:

• A short summary of how fit I am now, in three or four sentences.
• A table of my last 12 weeks: hours ridden, longest ride, total climbing, and number of hard sessions (Weighted Average Power above 85% of FTP) each week.
• What's missing. Check whether I've done enough long rides, enough climbing, enough long steady, hard efforts, and enough short bursts for attacks. For each gap, show the evidence from my data and why it matters for this event.
• A four-week plan to fix those gaps, with the key sessions, the long ride for each week, and power and heart-rate targets.
• An honest one-line answer on whether my goal is realistic.

A word on agentic AI

Rather than building all of the above as a self-serve chat-based coach that you ask questions of and manually prompt when you want it to adjust or analyse your work, it could even be built agentically. An overarching AI Agent could be given the primary prompt, the database of Strava workouts uploaded as resources alongside your preferences, and improvements to your power duration curve or your FTP can be its reward signal.

The trio of prompts above - alongside others - could then be created as 'skills' - essentially tools that the LLM can call upon, and automations can be built to check your progress periodically, update the plan in real time, and flag whenever you're off track.

If you wanted, you could even connect it to your Whoop (if you use one), and your Calendar app of choice to slot the workout into your day.

There's a lot of potential here, and although the build essentially seeks to mimic much of what's already been achieved by TrainerRoad, Zwift Plus, Vekta, FasCat, Xert et al, there's a certain enjoyment and pride in building it yourself (even if Claude is doing the hard yards), and being able to tweak it to your liking.

Conclusion

AI can be a valuable tool for cyclists to understand their training and improve performance, and many are already experimenting with ways to use AI to improve their training.

The results are going to depend on the input. While generating a basic training plan is easy, creating a genuinely bespoke one is harder.

The real insights come when AI accesses your historical training data. It analyses past performances, assesses your current state, and builds a plan around your ambitions, time, and individual needs. This results in a more detailed and personalised approach.

For the plans and outputs to be relevant, the data must be accurate, prompts carefully constructed, and output critically evaluated. Training recommendations are only as useful as their underlying information and assumptions. AI should not replace professional coaching or understanding your body's response to training.

There's also a cost, both for AI platform subscriptions and the time to organise data and refine prompts. Yet, for cyclists willing to invest the initial effort, the reward is a plan built around their own numbers rather than a generic one.

I aimed to see if AI could help me regain peak fitness. I now have a structured, data-driven 12-week plan designed to do just that. Its success will ultimately be determined on the bike in the coming weeks.

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

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

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

Design and aesthetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value

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

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

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

Verdict

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

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

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

Elite unveiled the Square at Eurobike in July 2024 and put it on sale in Europe in March 2025.

The Square is Elite's 'smart frame' offering, that being an adjustable indoor-specific bike used on a compatible trainer, instead of a bike.

For me, it remains one of the strongest alternatives to the Zwift Ride. Although both products combine a dedicated indoor frame with a smart trainer, their approaches are quite different

At the time of writing, the Square costs $1,990 / €1,049.99 / £1,099. Those prices are for the frame; don't forget you'll also need a compatible trainer.

I've been using one since September 2025, putting it through months of regular indoor riding across different trainers and platforms.

Design and aesthetics

The design of the Elite Square is, unsurprisingly, what gives it its name. I like the angular aesthetic, partly because I have always liked this type of design and still consider the early Volkswagen Golf and Polo among the most strikingly designed cars.

However, I appreciate that the angular design isn't going to appeal to everyone and doesn't necessarily follow the design language of a modern road bike. The Square features a clean, functional design built specifically for indoor riding, rather than attempting to mimic a traditional road bike.

Putting the aesthetic merits to one side, from a construction point of view, the frame is made from steel, powder-coated black and feels extremely solid. The detachable front support provides a solid base, while the rear of the frame connects directly to a smart trainer. Although the front support ensures great stability, it does bring the total weight of the product to 23kg.

At 23 kg, however, the Square isn't something you'll casually drag around the house. Moving it into position was cumbersome, and mounting it to the trainer was much easier with a second person. I did wonder whether wheels on the front support would make positioning easier, although adding them would inevitably add complexity and weight. The other major design feature is the belt drive, which replaces the conventional chain and cassette.

Elite's virtual shifting system manages gearing electronically and can be configured to replicate various drivetrain combinations, including 1x, 2x, and 3x setups, allowing for personalised gearing preferences.

The gear shifters are part of the well-padded handlebars, which measure 42cm and feel similar to SRAM's in the sense that one lever changes the virtual gear up on one side and down on the other. There are brakes, but on platforms like Zwift, they are not utilised.

The hoods have buttons to control your avatar and navigate menu systems, and Elite has worked hard to ensure that these function with major platforms like Zwift, ROUVY, and TrainingPeaks Virtual.

The handlebars connect via Bluetooth and use replaceable CR2032 batteries rather than a rechargeable battery. Elite quotes up to 80 hours of battery life. They are functional and practical, and the shifting feels very similar to what you would expect from a conventional road bike.

In addition, Elite notes that the handlebars interact with their fan, Aria. Practical details have also been considered. The Square includes an Elite T-Race bottle cage, though a second cage or a dedicated accessory holder would have been a welcome addition. Space for items like a phone or towel is limited, requiring users to plan their placement during long indoor sessions.

Setting up the Square is relatively straightforward but not a quick undertaking, and there are aspects where having an extra pair of hands is almost a necessity.

Elite has provided a series of videos that take you through the set-up process, and there are QR codes on the outside packaging that lead to the instructions.

Unfortunately for me, these were covered by shipping labels, so I reverted to using the manual. The manual is interesting in the sense that there are illustrations at the front; then you have to find your required language in the document, and it requires a lot of back-and-forth looking at the pictures, then reading what it means.

The most challenging part of the assembly was removing the cassette from the smart trainer and installing the one that comes packaged with the Square. This is specifically for the belt drive.

Elite provides the relevant tools to install the cassette. Installing the front support was the most challenging aspect for me. I initially struggled to get the bolts to thread fully. I eventually managed to secure the support, but this was the point at which having a second person was most useful.

Once the front support is installed, you will need to mount the frame onto the trainer. To do this, ensure that the drive belt is loose. There is a tensioner near the seat post that needs to be loosened by pulling it down. When the belt is slackened, you can install it on the trainer.

To tighten it, push the tensioner up; this will secure the belt in place on the newly installed cassette. When the frame is mounted to the trainer, you will need to attach the handlebars and optimise their position. The Square does come with a sizing guide that will help dial in your requirements, and there is a key that sits in the rear of the saddle that helps change the position of things like the saddle.

In summary, it is an involved but straightforward process. Fortunately, this is something you only have to do once.

Adjustability is one of Square's biggest advantages over a conventional indoor bike: it isn't built around a single rider.

The Square is designed to accommodate a wide range of riders and can be adjusted to provide a more personalised riding position. Elite states that it is suitable for riders from 152cm to 198cm tall, covering sizes from XS through to XL. There are multiple adjustment points. The saddle can be adjusted for both height and setback, while the handlebars can be adjusted for height and reach.

This allows the Square to be configured to closely replicate the position of your outdoor bike. A nice feature is the fact that the cranks can be positioned to your desired length. In total, there are five adjustable crank lengths: 165 mm, 167.5 mm, 170 mm, 172.5 mm, and 175 mm.

To change these, you loosen the bolt at the base of the crank arm and change the position of the pedal. It's not difficult and is far simpler than swapping cranks. The Square comes with a front support that provides a stable base and helps align the frame with the trainer, and can be set to different heights when installed.

The frame can also be used directly with Elite's Rizer system, which replaces the standard front support and adds gradient simulation and steering functionality. With this level of adjustability, the Square can be fine-tuned to suit individual riders, making it practical for households where more than one person wants to use the same indoor bike

The Elite Square app is primarily used to configure and manage the Square rather than as a training app in its own right. It allows you to connect the Square to the Elite smart trainer, configure the virtual drivetrain, and create individual rider profiles. You can replicate Shimano, SRAM, or Campagnolo gearing, or select from several preset options designed for flat, hilly, or mountainous riding.

Up to five rider profiles can be stored, which is particularly useful if the Square is being shared between several users, as each rider can have their own preferred gearing setup.

After the Square has been configured, you can use it with your preferred training platform, including Zwift and other cycling apps. The app also provides useful information such as battery level, trainer connection, and current gearing. If you don't want to use a training app, the Square can also be used in standalone mode, with resistance controlled directly from the handlebars.

The belt drive is one of the Square's unique features and sets it apart. Unlike a conventional chain and cassette, the Square uses a belt to transfer power to the smart trainer, resulting in a smooth, quiet pedal stroke free from the noise or vibration of a traditional drivetrain.

Gearing is handled electronically through the Square's virtual shifting system, allowing you to replicate your outdoor bike's gearing without a derailleur or cassette. Virtual shifting via bespoke handlebars: The Square doesn't use a conventional cassette and rear derailleur. Instead, its virtual drivetrain can be configured to replicate Shimano, SRAM, or Campagnolo gearing.

You can customise the number of cassette speeds, sprocket sizes, and chainring sizes, or select preset gearing profiles. There is also a sequential shifting mode with resistance adjustable from 5–24 levels. Shifting is controlled from the handlebars, which are fundamental to the product. Elite have crafted them to have the functionality for indoor cycling but with the same styling and feel as the setup for a bike you would use outside.

In terms of applications, the Elite Square is one of the most compatible dedicated indoor bike frames currently available. The Bluetooth handlebars have been refined so that they sync seamlessly with Zwift, and the virtual gearing is on a par with the Zwift Ride, which is something I can testify to, having provided feedback to Elite regarding the compatibility.

It also works with ROUVY as well as TrainingPeaks Virtual, which makes the Square particularly attractive if you use multiple indoor cycling platforms. In terms of hardware, the Square is optimised for Elite trainers, and these include the following: Avanti, Avanti Cog & Click, all Direto home trainers (Direto, Direto X, Direto XR, Direto XR-T, Direto XR Team, Direto XRCog & Click), Justo, Justo 2, Justo 2 Cog & Click. Rivo, Rivo Cog & Click, Suito and Suito-T.

The Square is at its most straightforward when paired with an Elite trainer, but I also tested it with a Tacx NEO 2T. The experience is slightly different because the Square becomes responsible for the virtual shifting connection rather than relying on the Elite trainer ecosystem.

I connected the Square to the Justo 2, creating a fully integrated Elite system that worked seamlessly. When connecting through Zwift, you simply select "SQUARE" in the Controls pairing section, and virtual gear works.

In the other pairing screens, I selected “JUSTO 2.” The Elite Square is also compatible with Elite's Rizer and comes with a bracket that replaces the front support and connects to the Rizer, creating the ultimate integrated system. In contrast, when used with the Tacx NEO 2T, when pairing in Zwift, you need to ensure "SQUARE" is selected in the Power Source, Resistance, and Cadence pairing screens.

One important point to note is that it is necessary to replace the cassette on your smart trainer with the Square-specific cassette. Tools and instructions to complete this task are supplied by Elite to install the bespoke cassette and may require a chain whip and cassette tool. There is an important caveat with Rizer. Elite says Square and Rizer should only be used with compatible trainers that support rear-carriage rotation and gradient simulation. Using Rizer with an incompatible trainer can cause severe and irreparable damage to the Square frame. Check Elite's current compatibility list before connecting the two.

Performance

The Square is very stable, thanks in part to the front support, which provides a solid base. Whether you are out of the saddle putting down the power in a sprint or standing on the pedals as you tackle a steep climb, the Square provides a stable and reassuring platform.

At the same time, because it is connected to a smart trainer, there is enough "give" to provide a natural riding experience. The belt drive gives the Square a noticeably different feel from a conventional bike. The first thing you notice is how quiet it is. There is no chain moving across a cassette and no mechanical clunk when changing gear; instead, the resistance changes almost instantaneously as you shift.

The belt drive does provide a different feel to riding with a chain; it’s noticeably smoother. I did experience one issue during testing. When putting out high power, particularly during hard climbs and sprints, I noticed a clunking noise from the bottom bracket.

Elite confirmed that this had been identified on some early models, including mine, and said improvements had been made to address it. The noise did not impact performance.

Other points to note include practical things such as the bottle cage. The bottle cage held my bottles securely, although a second cage would have been useful. The problem, however, is finding somewhere to put it.

I would also like to see an accessory holder included as standard rather than as an optional extra. There is nowhere obvious to put a phone or towel, leaving you to drape a towel over the handlebars and find somewhere else for your phone, which is particularly inconvenient.

Ultimately, the Square delivers a convincing indoor riding experience that feels much closer to riding a real bike than a conventional indoor trainer. Its stable platform, smooth belt drive, and virtual shifting all combine to make it a capable and enjoyable option for serious indoor riding.

The fact that your outdoor bike remains free and ready to ride is a bonus, particularly for riders who don't want to switch their bike between indoor and outdoor use

Value

At €1349, £1,299, or $1,799.99 USD, this unit isn't cheap, particularly as you still need a compatible smart trainer to go on top.

There are far cheaper ways to train with a smart trainer. You don't need one of these. And if you are considering investing in a 'frame' option, you are probably fairly serious about riding indoors.

In terms of 'smart frame' offerings, The Square is a good one, but you will need to pay for it. It's a luxury; you don't need one, but if it means your whole family can ride indoors and you minimise wear and tear on your bike, the value offering starts to look a bit more attractive.

Verdict

After several months with the Square, I still consider it the strongest alternative to Zwift's Ride.

It isn't a copy of the Ride and, in many respects, that is its biggest strength. The belt drive, virtual shifting, extensive adjustability and broad platform compatibility make it a more flexible proposition, particularly for riders who use more than one indoor cycling platform.

It isn't perfect. At 23kg, it is heavy to move, initial setup is more involved than it should be, and there is limited space for essentials such as a phone and towel. My early-model unit also developed a clunk from the bottom bracket under high power, although Elite has confirmed this was addressed in subsequent models.

Those issues aside, the Square delivers where it matters. It is stable, quiet, comfortable, and can be configured to closely replicate your outdoor bike. Add compatibility with Zwift, ROUVY, TrainingPeaks Virtual, and MyWhoosh along with the option of Elite's Rizer, and it becomes a genuinely versatile indoor cycling system.

If you spend a lot of time riding indoors, the Square makes a compelling case. Your outdoor bike stays outside, while the Square provides a dedicated indoor setup that is ready to ride whenever you are.

The season culminates with the 2027 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships taking place from Friday, 29 January to Sunday, 31 January 2027.

Before we get to World Cup action, we have plenty of action to enjoy, including the Cyclo-cross European Championships this weekend, November 7-8, and the Pan American Cyclo-cross Championships on November 7.

The only way to guarantee uninterrupted viewing from anywhere is to use a VPN. It lets you stream your usual subscribed cycling coverage from wherever you are while keeping your online connection secure and private.

NordVPN have gone early with its Black Friday deals, which save you up to 78% and an extra three months for free on top.

Save up to 78% with an early Black Friday NordVPN deal.

With star names including record-breaking eight-time World CX champion Mathieu van der Poel, Wout van Aert, and Tom Pidcock all likely to appear at some point in the full 12-round CX World Cup calendar, now is the ideal time to get your cyclo-cross streaming arrangements locked down.

A VPN (Virtual Private Network) is a cyber-security tool that keeps you safe online and allows you to alter the digital location of your devices, thus bypassing the geo-restrictions you get on most streaming platforms.

Our tech colleagues at both TechRadar and T3 both recommend NordVPN as the best overall, and its blistering speed, robust threat protection, and consistently dependable global network are some of its standout features.

2026/27 UCI Cyclo-cross World Cup Schedule

How to watch cyclo-cross in the UK

TNT Sports and HBO Max are the UK’s go-to home for cycling, boasting another bumper broadcast lineup for the 2026/27 cyclo-cross campaign. Subscribers can catch every battle across the UCI World Cup and World Championships, alongside regular action from the Superprestige, X2O Badkamers Trofee, and Exact Cross circuits.

Access to TNT Sports starts at £25.99 a month, and TNT Sports plus HBO Max starts at £27.99. HBO Max also includes some of the best series and movies on top of the live sports coverage.

How to watch cyclo-cross in the US

Following the cyclo-cross season from the US can be a bit fragmented, with live rights largely split between FloBikes and HBO Max.

Dedicated cycling hub FloBikes carries a healthy slice of top-flight action, including select World Cup rounds. However, broadcast schedules can fluctuate and don't always cover the entire calendar, making it wise to monitor their upcoming listings closely. Membership is either $39.99 on a rolling monthly basis or $155.88 for an annual pass.

HBO Max holds a major share of US streaming rights across the winter calendar. To access the live sports feed, you'll need at least the Standard ad-free tier, which sits at $18.49 per month.

For occasional free-to-air viewing, the official UCI YouTube channel occasionally streams select races live, though those feeds are strictly geoblocked in regions where a domestic broadcaster holds exclusive distribution rights.

We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.

Roval claims that the Rapide CLX Sprint are ‘the fastest road wheels [they’ve] ever tested’. When they were launched in the summer of 2025, they turned heads and raised eyebrows with their revolutionary (to the road market, at least) mullet dimensions; a deeper front wheel and shallower rear wheel.

A front wheel depth of 63mm and a rear wheel depth of 58mm, paired with carbon spokes and ceramic DT 180 hubs makes the intended use of this wheelset exceedingly clear; these are for racing. Fast.

I’ve been testing these wheels for the last few months on the road in pretty much all conditions. I’ve ridden them on fast flat group rides, up long mountains, and battered them over a broad variety of road surfaces from smooth asphalt to fine gravel on unpaved bike paths.

By way of comparison, I’ve actually ridden (and owned) both previous generations of Roval’s Rapide wheelsets, and currently use a set of Reserve 57/64 Turbulent wheels on my race bike - as well as having tested dozens of other wheels over the last few years; so I have a pretty deep pool of experience to compare with.

These Rovals are positioned as one of the best road bike wheels in the market, and have all the credentials - on paper, at least - to live up to Roval’s speed claims.

Design and Aesthetics

Let’s address the elephant in the room first; the difference in depth between the front and rear wheel is nowhere near as noticeable as you might think. At a glance, you’d be hard pushed to see a 5mm difference in rim depth when standing still - let alone when whizzing past - and when we first spotted these wheels at the Spring Classics in 2025, it was only the eagle eye of senior tech writer Will Jones - who really is frightfully attuned to 5mm differences in wheel depth - who spotted these on the Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe bikes.

When explaining this design choice, Roval claimed that “90% of aero benefit comes from the front wheel”, so they optimised this whilst reducing the depth of the rear wheel to save weight and keep the overall package as light as possible. I can’t validate these aero claims myself, but the theory is sound. I’ll get into my experience with the performance of these wheels later on.

Depth aside, the rest of the rim dimensions are equally as interesting. Both front and rear internal widths are 21mm. This was somewhat of a surprise to me and - dare I say it - quite narrow for a modern wheelset. Roval’s reasoning for this width is that the rim profile is aerodynamically optimised around a 28mm tyre. For comparison, the Reserve 57|64 are 25.4mm internally at the front and 24.4mm at the rear - so are much better suited to more modern tyre widths of 30mm, 32mm, or even wider; not uncommon even on racing bikes in 2026.

My main surprise with the internal rim width is that it’s exactly the same as the previous two generations of Rapide wheels - which were first launched alongside the Specialized Tarmac SL7 in 2020. At the time, 21mm was plenty wide enough for the narrower widths riders chose back then - I was still racing on 23mm rubber - but a lot’s changed since then, and the choice to retain a 21mm internal width feels a little out of touch with the choices riders are making in 2026.

The wheels came to me in ‘review spec’, meaning they were missing a lot of the accessories they are supposed to include (such as wheel bags or tubeless valves), but they did come with a set of 28mm Specialized cotton folding racing only tyres. When mounted, these looked a lot narrower than 28mm, and left a noticeable lip of the rim showing. The external widths are 35mm at the front and 34.4mm at the rear, which accentuated how narrow the 28mm tyres looked, and they measured up closer to 27mm. Roval claims that the wheels are rated for tyres ranging from 24mm up to 38mm - I would suggest that the profile of a 38mm tyre on these rims would be sub-optimal, at least aerodynamically.

After a few weeks on the 28mm cotton tyres with inner tubes (which were amazing by the way - these were my race tyres of choice a few years ago, and it was lovely to revisit them and remind myself how fast and chattery they feel compared to modern, fatter rubber) I switched to some tubeless options; namely Continental’s GP5000 S TR in a 30mm and then a 32mm spec. I’ll get onto how this impacted the wheels in the performance section of the review.

At this point, it’s worth noting that the Rapide range of wheels are available in three specifications; the CLIII, the CLXIII, and these Sprint CLX. The CLIII and CLXIII both use a shallower rim combination of 51mm at the front and 48mm at the rear. All three variants share the same carbon rim construction, with the differences being the choice of spokes and hubs specced. The CLIII are priced at £1,548 and use DT Swiss Competition Race Straight Pull spokes and DT Swiss 350 stainless steel hubs, and the CLXIII uses the same spokes and hub combo as these sprints and are priced the same at £2,998.

Carbon spokes are still fairly rare on stock wheels from mainstream brands, but Roval has plumped for composite spokes manufactured by Arris Composites.

Arris is a brand I wasn’t familiar with before diving into the spec sheet of these wheels, but a quick glance at its website shows that it primarily produces ‘drone & defense’ products, alongside carbon plates for running shoes. In the interest of brevity, I won’t be diving too much further down the rabbit hole beyond their company motto: “Making products radically lighter and stronger”. Safe to say, it delivers on these goals.

The front wheel has 18 two-cross radially laced spokes, and the rear 24 one-cross / three-cross. All the spokes have alloy nipples and titanium endpieces.

I haven’t used carbon spokes before, and to be honest I don’t think I noticed that much of a difference. Of course, they’ll contribute to the feather light weight of these wheels, but in terms of stiffness or compliance, I can’t say they moved the needle for me compared to other wheels with steel spokes. I did have thoughts of their fragility in the back of my mind for the first few rides, but these quickly vanished after battering over a few cobbled sectors around Bristol and having no issues. In terms of practicality, they are pretty proprietary spokes, but Roval supplies four extra spokes and nipples should anything happen.

Roval has specced the ‘Sprint’ variation of these Rapide wheels with some pretty bling hubs. The hub body is a custom machined Roval alloy hub loaded with DT Swiss 180 ceramic bearings. These are really beautiful hubs that look as premium as they feel - even down to the minimalist centrelock rotor hubs with fewer splines to further reduce weight.

Performance

Riding with these wheels felt great. The combination of deep, aerodynamic rims picking up the wind and pushing me along like a sail combined with the low rotational weight and super smooth hubs gave me the sensation of having really good legs on every ride. Those subtle sensations - when you punch over the top of a climb and get back up to speed a little quicker than normal, or when you look at your speed on the flat and find your going a few kilometers an hour quicker than you thought you were - are hard to find when you’re an experienced rider and usually ride pretty fast equipment, but these wheels really did feel special.

Of course, there’s every chance that this was the placebo effect of having some shiny new equipment, but it didn’t really diminish much throughout the test period, so I’m inclined to say the wheels are actually just really fast.

They were stiff without being jittery, deep without being easily led by crosswinds, and light enough to flick up climbs out the saddle without the sensation of being dragged backwards that some aero wheels can have.

I rode these wheels in some pretty heavy rain throughout the testing, and - although I haven’t put thousands of kilometers into them - the hubs are still running smoothly and showing virtually zero signs of wear.

Gushing aside, I did have one qualm with the wheels that I couldn’t shake. Using the 28mm inner-tube-only cotton tyres pumped up to about 80psi felt a bit jittery; they were firm and translated a lot of road noise through to my hands. I didn’t necessarily mind this - it’s about what I expected and reminded me of how bikes used to feel. I also knew that the narrower tyres are the specification the wheels are designed around, so running them was offering the maximum aerodynamic benefit; which I’m sure played some part in making these wheels feel so…zippy.

However, when I switched up to 30mm tyres, the wheels did feel slightly more muted. The profile of the tyres on the rims was also much wider than the 28mm Specialized tyres (which suggests to me that the Specialized tyres actually come up a little undersized) and had an ever so slight lightbulb looking profile to them, which I knew would impact the aerodynamics.

They were, of course, more comfortable than the 28mm tyre, but knowing they were costing watts and losing that real edge that these wheels had presented up until now didn’t feel great. The 32mm tyres were even wider, and ballooned out significantly from the rim.

Comparing this to the Reserve wheels I run day-to-day, which have a 25.4mm internal width at the front and 24.4mm at the rear and accept 30 and 32mm rubber with a much smoother profile, and the impracticality of the Roval’s rim width becomes clearer.

Race bikes have changed a lot in recent years. We’ve seen riders up-sizing their tyres for a number of years now, and not just in the Spring Classics where wider tyres have always been the norm. A wheel optimised for a 28mm tyres does make me think the Rapide Sprint CLXs will become outdated quite quickly as more and more riders follow the pros lead and switch to fatter rubber.

Now, I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with 28mm tyres, nor am I suggesting that there’s anything wrong with 21mm internal rim widths; much like rim brakes - they still work absolutely fine. But, you can’t deny, they are measurements that are becoming increasingly outdated as the industry progresses, and if you wanted to future proof yourself with a set of wheels that will stand the test of time, these probably aren’t quite wide enough to do so.

Personal preference aside, I’m pleased to say that the hooked rims were a doddle to set up tubeless with just a track pump using both the 30mm and 32mm Continental tyres.

If you plan on using these with inner tubes, make sure you stock up on long-valve spare tubes or valve extenders, as the 63mm front rim is too deep for most standard tubes, and you may get caught out…which DEFINITELY didn’t happen to me…

Value

There’s no two ways about it; these wheels are expensive. Just under £3,000 is getting on for the most it’s possible to spend on stock wheels, and there are much less expensive wheels out there that will offer much of the performance you find in the Rapide CLX Sprints.

The Hunt 5AM Limitless wheels, reviewed by Will Jones recently, are a strong alternative. But even within Roval’s own Rapide range, the CLIIIs are £1,548 - almost half the price - and, although they lose the carbon spokes and drop down to a slightly shallower rim depth, will still be a significant upgrade on a lot of stock wheelsets.

However, these particular hoops are tricked out with some of thez finest components money can buy, and they feel wicked fast. Can you really put a price on that feeling?

Comparing them to the Reserve 57|64 SL Turbulent Aero wheels - which retail for a mere £1 more - and the spec sheet is broadly the same, bar the Reserve’s favouring a Tune hub. However, the Reserve wheels do include both the Shimano HG and the SRAM XDR driver in the box - so creep ever so slightly ahead on the value front. They also do have a more modern rim profile, so will hold their stock a bit better as the years roll on and tyres continue to get wider.

Verdict

Overall, I really did enjoy riding these wheels, but I probably wouldn’t buy them. As fast and sprightly as they felt, I just wouldn’t want to part with that much cash for a rim of this width given my preference for more modern tyre widths.

You might disagree. If you’re a fan of (what I would call) narrower tyres and want a fast, stiff, light race wheel package, and are happy knowing that if you wanted to fit wider tyres to these wheels you’d be missing out on a lot of their claimed aero benefit, then these are great. If you want to run tyres wider than 28mm, I’d say there are better options out there.

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

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

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

Design and aesthetics

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

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

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

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

Components and build

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value

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

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

Verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Design and aesthetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value

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

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

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

Verdict

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

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

UPDATE

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

Like it or not, the road mullet trend is here to stay, and this is another new wheelset with a deeper front wheel than rear. Hunt makes some bold claims, but we can park them for a second as the 5AM Limitless Ti-UD Carbon Spoke Disc (to give it its full title) came out as the fastest road bike wheels in our recent wind tunnel test. Wind tunnel numbers can only tell you so much, so I slapped ‘em on a Dura-Ace equipped Look Blade 795 RS, in place of the Scope Artech 6.A wheels it came with (I know, this job is hard and miserable and awful) and gave them a good seeing to.

The short version is they back up on the road what they promised in the tunnel. Well behaved, lithe and responsive, without that nagging feeling of fragility I sort of felt under me with the Scopes.

Design and aesthetics

Let’s start with the aesthetics before we move onto the design; these are good looking wheels. Maybe you don’t agree, but you’re not the one writing this review. The vast majority of road and gravel wheels now are matter black hoops with a white logo. Not only are these not black, but a lovely almost steel blue-grey, but they’re gloss. Long have I craved for gloss carbon to make a comeback, because it’s so much easier to live with. Moreover the logos are applied under the lacquer, which makes them look and feel more premium. I always find it incredibly frustrating when the logos start chipping off a set of Scope Artechs relatively swiftly, or even more so how a set of £4k Enve wheels just have vinyl stickers slapped on ‘em; it feels cheap.

The vaguely '80s vibe of the grey continues to the hubs, which also look very smart with the colour matched disc rotor lockrings. I know aesthetics don’t actually make any difference to performance, but I think if we’re all honest with ourselves we all want a set of wheels that look the business.

The rim dimensions are pushing the limits of what a ‘5’ designation can comfortably cover, with a 58mm deep front and a 55mm deep rear. While this is technically road mullet, in practice not even my beady eyes can perceive a 3mm difference in rim depth unless the bike is up against a wall and I’m thinking about it intently.

Width-wise, the front and rear differ slightly, too, with a 34.5mm external width up front for a claimed greater stability in the wind, and a 30mm at the rear, which I assume is also a play to keep the weight down as a system. Both rims have a 23mm internal width, and are hooked. This perhaps isn’t as wide as you’d like if you’re pushing the limits of road tyre widths, but if you’re cutting about on something 28-32mm it’s just right, and I suspect most of you considering buying these probably are.

The system weight is a claimed 1,212g (574g front, 638g rear). On our scales they weighed in at 1,229g, which is certainly acceptably close to the claim. It also makes them 78g lighter than a set of Scope Artech 6.A wheels, which have for some time been a personal benchmark for being both extremely aerodynamic and very lightweight.

Part of this weight saving is down to the low spoke counts; just 15 at the front, with a scant 5 on the non-disc side. At the rear you get a mere 18, with a 2:1 ratio on the driveside vs rotor side. In this guise the spokes are bladed carbon with Ti hardware at the hub end and hidden alloy nipples at the rim for another aero boost. The hubs can be upgraded from steel bearings to ceramic from Ceramicspeed, but come with low contact seals in either case. I tested the steel versions.

I shan’t spoil all the aero details, but if you are a real watt watcher and want to deep dive into just how these wheels performed then I implore you to go and read Josh’s incredibly detailed writeup of our latest wheels wind tunnel test. The short digest for the purposes of the review is that with a 28mm tyre fitted these Hunts were the fastest on test. The margins are small over the competition, but that’s how the data falls.

Performance

I’ve ridden a fair few very good wheelsets in my time, and while Hunt has been making fast wheels for some time it hasn’t necessarily had something in the superwheel category until now; something to challenge the Scopes of this world. Perhaps this is also because it does such a good job at disseminating its budget friendly wheels about the place that it slightly diminishes its more premium offerings, but here, with the 5AM Limitless, it has a superwheel that’s absolutely up there with the best wheels on the market.

I’m not going to claim I can feel the difference in aerodynamics between these and a set of Artechs; I can’t, and you wouldn’t believe me if said I could anyway, but from a performance standpoint these are the fastest by the tunnel data, and when paired with a bike of the calibre of the Look Blade 795 RS they absolutely flew along. The aero is a given, but they’re so good in so many other ways that I find them so hard to overlook in the ‘best road wheels on the market’ conversation.

First of all they’re hooked. Say what you like about hookless being fine if you do everything right, and I have never had an incident with hookless wheels (because I’ve done everything right) but I’d just rather have hooked road wheels and have one less thing to worry about. They’re also wider internally than the new Roval Rapide CLX III, which my colleague Tom noted made them perhaps a little dated already.

They’re also just about the lightest wheels we tested, besides the CRW Works Ultimo 6060. Weight isn’t everything, but to be the most aero and near as dammit the lightest too is quite something, and out on the road they feel much like the Scopes did when I had them fitted to a Pinarello Dogma F; fast on the flat, and then this feeling that they just keep being fast on whatever gradient you like.

Flat blasts are a joy, and while they aren’t as stable in the wind as the delightfully placid Reserves that I rode on the Cervélo S5, they’re extremely well behaved, but they also feel incredible if you like hitting out on punchy climbs. I matched my best ever time up my local test, a 200m all-out sprint at 12% average, maxing out at 17% in places. Close your eyes and you have a shallow, hyper-responsive climbing wheel.

I was a little worried the low spoke count might make them feel a little less stiff. They don’t feel quite as stiff as a set of Artechs, but this may also be a perception thing as I mostly just felt like I felt less road buzz and chatter through them, which to my eyes is a good thing. They’re more than stiff enough for all-out sprints, and feel great in cornering without being overly jittery.

They’re quiet, too. I have had a set of Hunt hubs in the past that were so loud they made a toddler cry as I rode past. The Scopes are louder even than those, but the Chase SLC hubs here are only moderately loud. If I had my way they’d be silent, but that’s not how ratchets work. The 7.5º engagement angle is sufficient for road, and I never felt like I was caught floating between teeth.

I also am pleased to say I accidentally tested the durability of these wheels. After a Wednesday night hill sprint session, followed by a couple of beers, I went to get some delicious takeaway Szechuan hot pot. So distracted was I by the promise of a warming, savoury, numbing broth (and absolutely nothing to do with the beers on an empty stomach after exercise) that I rode straight into a curb head on. It wasn’t overly fast, but it was hard, and I am pleased to say I neither dropped my soup nor broke the front wheel.

Value

More aero than anything else we tested. Lighter than all but one of the cohorts we tested, with performance on the road that backs up the lab testing numbers, combined with good looks, and all for a price that’s cheaper than the equivalent from Reserve, Parcours, DT Swiss, Roval, Scope, Vision, and Syncros. The only cheaper wheels we tested were Chinese brands, and they didn’t perform all that well in aero terms. Even with the ceramic bearing upgrade they’re still cheaper than most in this performance bracket, so it’s hard to not give them full marks for value.

I am writing this assuming of course that you’re after the fastest, or indeed the lightest. There’s every chance you perhaps budgeted a lot less that £2k and found your mind wandering, and in broad terms the differences are tangible but small to cheaper wheels. While we haven’t directly compared, the wattage gulf will be one that is easily traversed, perhaps a couple of watts in it really, and a small gram penalty too thanks to the law of diminishing returns. Despite this it’s hard to not see these as exceptionally good value wheels given how well they perform against far more premium competition.

Verdict

I think these might be the best road wheels on the market right now. Maybe Hunt doesn’t have the brand cachet of Reserve, Roval, or Vision, but it’s created a set of wheels that rides fantastically on all terrain, with sensational aero and weight figures that beat the competition in almost all circumstances, and all for a price that’s lower than almost all the mainstream competition too.

My caveat to this is that, for example, if you were building up an S-Works Tarmac SL9, then a set of Rovals will have been designed to work with that frame in a way that may surpass what these are capable of. Likewise the Reserves in the Cervélo S5, but even then the price differential is such that I could look past it, as there’s almost £1,000 between these and a set of Rovals.

Shimano launched its new R9300 Dura-Ace wheel range in late July after months of under-the-radar pro-use shots and speculation.

I’d followed the wheels since the early spring, when we regularly saw Mathieu van der Poel racing on plain rims and hubs stamped ‘prototype’.

Three days after Van der Poel’s magnificent win on the wheels in the final stage of this year's Tour de France, they arrived to market as part of an updated six-model range.

The C50 has long been the most commonly used Dura-Ace wheel; as the range’s all-rounder, it’s the one that tends to be raced on the most. Its 50mm depth makes it likely the fastest across the widest range of terrain.

The previous R9200 Dura-Ace wheels certainly weren’t boring, but it didn’t feel like they were many regular riders' first choice when it came to the best road bike wheels. I certainly didn't see many at all in the wild, and it's safe to say Shimano wheels are not as popular as their groupsets are.

Alpecin-Premier Tech were the single team riding the wheels in the men’s WorldTour, and the fairly standard (by 2026 wheels) steel spokes, low-key Dura-Ace graphics and rim profiles were possibly just a little underwhelming.

The new R9300’s seem to have been met with a positive reception all round, and their updated aesthetics have surely done some good.

I’ve been using the wheels for months to see how they perform and how they are to live with. Big logos and carbon spokes might have been two of the best things Shimano could have done visually, but what about the rest of the package?

Design and aesthetics

Let’s start with what changed from the previous-gen R9200 wheels. The standout feature is the addition of Vonoa carbon fibre bladed spokes instead of steel ones.

The spoke count has also decreased from 24 to 21 spokes front and rear to save weight. The spoke nipples themselves are still external.

Carbon spokes aren’t automatically guaranteed to produce a good wheelset, but the weight savings and potential improved stiffness (depending on spoke count) that they provide are hard to ignore in a performance road wheel.

On the topic of weight, the new C50's weigh in at 1318 grams on my scales with tubeless tape. A much more competitive weight than the previous wheelsets' 1461-odd grams.

The rims themselves have also received an update; inner and outer widths grew to 23mm internal from 21mm. The external width is also now front- and rear-specific. The front rim is now 31mm wide, and the rear is 32mm. The wheels are optimised for 28-30mm tyres.

Shimano is also said to have tweaked the layup of the rim, essentially to help produce the best overall performance for a rim of this depth. Dura-Ace is equipment designed for racing, so that means sprinting, hard cornering, changes of direction and the like.

The wheels didn’t arrive with in-depth aerodynamic test data, though Shimano did cite a 2.7-watt aero drag saving at 48 km/h with 30mm tyres at the time of launch.

We haven’t taken the R9300 C50’s to the wind tunnel for our own CN Labs wind tunnel testing yet, but we will try to get some data for them in the future. The previous-generation C50's finished at the bottom end of the table when we last took them to the tunnel in 2024.

Dura-Ace hubs have long been viewed as precision, high-quality options, and notably the brand has stuck with a ‘cup and cone’, or loose ball bearing arrangement in its hubs, whereby the ball bearings sit in an open cage.

Whilst the hubs use open caged bearings, sealed cartridge bearings can still be found in the freehub body.

The brand believes that a cup and cone system provides advantages over a sealed cartridge bearing; this caged bearing arrangement incidentally is what Shimano's long-time rivals Campagnolo also use in its Record hubs.

The R9300 hubs now have replaceable bearing cups, making pretty much the entire hub assembly replaceable if needed. I’ve worked on Dura-Ace hubs where pitted and worn bearing cups meant essentially permanently compromised performance (new bearings and/or cones would prematurely wear in rough, worn cups); this should now be a thing of the past for customers if it gets to that point.

The hubs themselves are a classic Dura-Ace gunmetal grey, and have a big vertical wordmark on the shell. The end caps need cone spanners for removal; they don't just pull off.

The freehub body is aluminium like the outgoing generation and has a 3.5 degree engagement angle which gives 103 points of engagement. The freehub body currently accepts a regular Shimano 12-speed cassette; we understand that when it arrives, the new Dura-Ace groupset will use 13 sprockets. This makes me think those 13 sprockets will fill the same amount of space as 12. I can't see Shimano rolling out some sort of updated freehub body for already launched wheels.

Aesthetically, the combination of those bladed carbon spokes, matte rims, and a prominent ‘Dura-Ace’ logo on each side of the rim has really helped update the wheels' look and ‘coolness ’, in my opinion. In short, it strikes me as just what they needed.

Performance

These are Shimano’s all-rounders, and I can report that the C50’s offer strong performance no matter what you are doing. I’ve done various training sessions, general Zone 2 rides and hard chaingangs on them, including flat-out max sprints, and they handle it all with ease.

I set the wheels up tubeless with some 28mm Pirelli (deep breath) P Zero Race TLR SL-R tyres, for a full factory Alpecin-Premier Tech spec.

The tubeless setup was very easy to do with a track pump, which I find is now the norm for modern road wheels and tyres. The tyres have held air well, with some normal drops in pressure but no leaks or seepage. The factory Shimano tubeless tape install was also, as you might expect, very tidy.

The wheels' freehub is also quieter than most; there’s a recording below for you to listen to. It's actually a lot quieter than that in use. I’m a fan of a quiet freehub, but it’s down to user preference.

Regarding performance, the C50 wheels haven't blown me away in any one key area. They don't feel hyper stiff or super fast; they are just rock solid across the board.

Whether I've been out of the saddle climbing a double-digit gradient, sprinting flat out at the end of the club run, hunkered down and cracking on on the flat, or leaning them into fast corners, the C50's have handled everything without breaking a sweat. They feel fast and exciting to use, and for me, look very smart.

They don't feel quite as stiff and taught as the Vision Metron RS wheels I tested last year, but out-of-the-saddle lateral stiffness, handling characteristics, and slow-speed acceleration are all good.

Mid- to high-end road wheelsets are getting lighter and lighter, and I think the market is setting a standard for wheels to come with carbon spokes right now. The weight drop the Vonoa carbon spokes have helped provide is useful here, and helps the wheels feel light and zippy in use.

On some rough tarmac, the wheels have felt slightly harsh at times with 28mm tyres; the remedy is going up in tyre size and down in pressure. A 30mm may well be the optimal choice for anything other than very smooth tarmac, but for me they didn't quite have the same luxurious ride quality as the Roval Rapide CLX III wheels.

It's worth mentioning axle and bearing 'feel': the cup and cone system doesn't have quite the same buttery smooth, effortless feel as a quality sealed bearing. It's not bad, just different, and the wheels still spin very well.

If you are buying a set, I’d recommend at least a yearly hub service. The best bet in the UK is to find and use an official Shimano service centre, where they should do things the right way, using the correct Shimano grease, etc.; these are top-end wheels and should be treated as such.

Value

These wheels have an RRP of $2,970 / £2,298.99 / €2,699.98.

Expensive, but not as earth-shattering as some other top-tier models on the market; I think things could have been worse.

For a quick comparison, the recently launched Zipp 202 NSW wheels are very pricey at £3.400/$4,200/€3,800, the DT Swiss ARC 1100 wheels I tested earlier in the year are $3,218 / €2,499 / £2,599.98 with tyres and tubes included and the Roval Rapide CLX III's are $3,399.98 / £2,999.98 / €3,498.

Cheaper than some big-name competition, with solid performance and easily available spare parts.

Verdict

This is a good update for the Dura-Ace C50 wheelset.

They haven't provided standout performance in one key area; they aren't the stiffest or the lightest out there. We also hope to gain our own wind tunnel test results for them in time to see how they fare against the competition.

What they are undoubtedly is a quality wheelset worthy of the Dura-Ace name. The C50's are all-rounders, and that is what you are getting with these wheels: solid performance across the board, in a more attractive overall package.

I'm expecting to see a few more pairs of these wheels out in the wild.

While that’s generally structured with a positive spin that aims to support our readers in preparing for their upcoming winter of pedalling nowhere, guiding with setup tips and suggesting accessories that can improve their experience, we’d be wrong to pretend that cycling indoors is everyone’s cup of tea.

We’re all different, so this article is going to explore the other side of the virtual coin.

Even here within the Cyclingnews editorial team, there’s a broad range of opinion. I personally rather enjoy cycling indoors. It’s convenient, structured, safe, and I can know what time I’ll be finished with to-the-minute precision, making planning it into my day perfectly easy.

But others here hate it. On one recent call, one of my colleagues’ immediate replies was: “I’d rather pull my nails out.”

That, and other things mentioned below, are a few of the opinions that have been flying around amongst the CN Team this week, so we thought we would package them up for you to enjoy. They might ruffle some feathers, but balance and honesty are important in journalism, so hopefully we don’t upset too many people.

Indoor training doesn't make a peloton-ready cyclist

When I was racing, I had a love-hate relationship with my indoor trainers. This was before Zwift and the gamification of cycling, when riders only spent time on the trainer if they had broken an arm, had to work during the short daylight hours, or it was snowing. When I had to ride indoors, it was usually one focussed hour of intervals.

Maybe it's because I was a competitive swimmer as a kid and was used to counting minutes of effort and seconds of rest without outside entertainment - but some loud music or an old Paris-Roubaix replay on the TV for inspiration was more than enough.

I've done my time on Zwift, and the gamification aspect can inspire riders to make impressive aerobic fitness and strength gains. However, for me, it de-emphasises what is the best part of being a cyclist is: being immersed in the flow of the peloton, learning etiquette from the more experienced riders, getting fit together and then pushing faster and further than you could ever do on your own.

I remember doing a 'century' (100 miles/161km) in the flatter part of eastern North Carolina with a well-disciplined group of about 20 riders, just pace-lining, no attacks or other hijinks, and finishing in four hours. No stops, no rest, just beautifully efficient at 40kph.

But then came the apps, and dudes started showing up at group rides with impressive fitness from a winter of Zwift, with all the confidence of a member of the masochist club, absolutely no idea how to ride in a group, and zero interest in learning. They were an absolute menace in the bunch: hostile to any advice, frustratingly resistant to being flicked out the back, disrupting the flow completely with attacks, and totally ruining the vibe.

Yes, I'm a curmudgeon, but I really miss the days when indoor training was a much-loathed necessity and road cycling was an in-person collective effort, not just a chance to show off your watts/kg on the no-drop group ride. I think the beauty of a peloton moving like a murmuration at speed is an essential part of cycling culture - and one that an app just cannot teach.

'I don’t hate it as much as I used to'

Let’s get this straight: indoor cycling is not my happy place, but on the other hand, I don’t hate as much as I used to. For me, cycling is about being outside; it might be a cliché, but I enjoy the wind in my face, experiencing the day whether it’s warm or cold, feeling the tyres rolling; it’s all so much better than staring at a closed garage door. It’s a bit sad that someone my age sees every ride as an adventure, but I do; when I ride, I’ve been somewhere and done something.

It’s also about joy. But joy is not clattering into potholes in the dark, and riding in the rain is one of the least joyful things I’ve ever done voluntarily. I won’t ride in the rain; I own a rain jacket, but I’ve only worn it three times in six years. This is where the turbo trainer comes in.

I’m not going to race again, and I can’t remember the last time I did an organised event, so I’m not ‘training’, but I want to continue enjoying outdoor rides and maintain my overall fitness; a bit of exertion stops me getting grumpy, too. So when the days are short, or the weather is bad, you will find me on the turbo.

Back when ‘dumb’ trainers were the only option, I hated it and set a limit of 30 minutes, but a smart turbo and indoor apps make it doable, and much better. Picking one of the workouts on Zwift helps me add some structure, and more importantly, some interest to my indoor riding. It’s also time-efficient; I get a decent workout from an indoor ride, and sometimes it’s even fun as well as productive.

But for me it’s a solo affair. Maybe it’d be better with all the groups, chats and messages, but I’m not interested, partly because I’m a little antisocial and partly because I don’t wear my glasses as they steam up. I won’t notice if you’ve given me one of those thumbs-up Ride On things because unless it’s a very easy session, I just can’t see.

Indoor cycling isn’t going to make me a better bike handler; I won’t have any meaningful social interaction, and it can’t replicate the richness that riding outside creates in my soul. But it does help my fitness and provides a close enough facsimile of the real thing that I get genuine satisfaction out of it. I am now off to ride Zwift for a while; I just won’t see you if you’re there.

It’s not fun, is it?

Give me a training plan, an erg mode workout and make me follow a line on a graph and I can pluck up the motivation, so long as I know there’s an end goal being pursued. Put me in a virtual world and ask me to ‘free ride’, and I’ll be bored in 10 minutes. I know it’s basically the same principle as ‘free riding’ outside, but the flow state I experience with steering, wind and tyre noise, cars passing, route planning and so on, just doesn’t come when it’s a virtual avatar pedalling awkwardly through a pixelated landscape. Even with the advent of in-game steering and the noise of the fan, I get bored.

Invariably I open YouTube or Netflix, or I get off the bike.

That’s not to say indoor cycling is bad. It can definitely serve a purpose, and to have helped more people be more active, I’m all for it. But it’s not fun. Not the type 1 variety anyway.

I hate what indoor cycling has become, but only because I quite like staring at a wall

I love riding bikes outside, but I also used to get a perverse satisfaction from my old school, wheel-on trainer in combination with a stopwatch, a towel, and somewhere to be sick. It got me very fit for racing cyclo-cross, and while it didn't replicate the fun of riding outside it was efficient, and masochistic in a way that pottering about up a pretend volcano can never replicate.

The thing I love about outdoor cycling is the effort in combination with all of the lovely sensations, but in the absence of those lovely sensations of cornering, wind, a snotty nose, the spray of leaf mulch on my shins, and the abominable noise of modern freehubs, I just want the effort.

Modern indoor training isn't rubbish because it doesn't replicate outdoors well enough, it's rubbish because it puts too many barriers between me and getting my heart rate up to something approaching maximum while I listen to Bullet For My Valentine. I don't want to log into an app, realise the WiFi connection is spotty, dig out the extender, pair my trainer and heart rate monitor with the laptop, update nine different firmwares, choose a course, realise that bit of the map is locked, choose a different course, wait for it to buffer.... and finally ride. At each of those steps the risk of me just giving up in frustration becomes higher.

I just want a machine to provide resistance and a brick wall to stare at. I don't want to race a man from Finland. I know it's still possible, but it's becoming much rarer.

The contrasting (positive) opinion: Indoor offers almost everything I need from cycling

For me, cycling is not about the wind in my hair, an in-the-moment adventure or finding the path less travelled. It’s about being competitive, racing, testing myself and sprinting for the finish line with a chance of victory.

Riding outdoors teaches a part of that: bunch etiquette, handling, tyre grip limits and so on. But once you’ve got those skills, they don’t need much refinement. And without a good foundation of fitness, those skills aren’t particularly useful anyway.

And riding outdoors is fine for building that foundation of fitness, but I can do it much more quickly and comprehensively on a smart trainer with a machine forcing me to ride at a set power output. It also means an hour of riding takes about an hour and five minutes. Unlike riding outside in winter, where an hour’s ride takes close to two hours, once you factor in getting changed twice and cleaning the bike.

A few years ago, I spent an entire summer training indoors for the British Gravel National Championships. Knowing the route wasn’t technical, and knowing I had bunch etiquette down from years of racing on the road, I don’t think I did more than four or five rides outside before the race. I finished fourth.

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

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

Let me explain.

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

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

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

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

The bike explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wind tunnel performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real riding experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Even affordable mountain bike lights are bright enough to push the pace on tasty trails for an hour or more, while more expensive sets will give near daylight conditions for several hours. Helmet lights put their power exactly where you look, so even the tightest corners or steepest drops don't catch you out.

Even so, riding at night will put a whole new spin on your rides, with everything seeming faster and totally fresh – even on local trails you ride day after day. As well as being huge fun, night riding is a great way to maintain hard-won summer fitness into the new year.

The great news is that after huge advances in lithium-ion battery, LED and display tech, light development has slowed down recently. That means proven, reliable designs at every price point, rather than troublesome tech that's been rushed into the after-dark arms race.

So scroll down our list of the best mountain bike handlebar and helmet lights from under £100 to over £500 to find the perfect products for taking your XC, trail, enduro and riding 24/7. If you want to check out our pick of models better suited for on-road use, see our guide to the best bike lights.

Best premium mountain bike light

Exposure incrementally improves its lights on a regular basis, and its latest Six Pack Mk15 is its most powerful front light yet - but that's not the biggest news.

The Six Pack now has a maximum output of 6,000 lumens (peak power in Reflex mode) from six white XPL2 (W3) LEDs powered by an internal 20,000 mAH Li-Ion battery that's 17.6% bigger than the last model. The run time ranges from just over two hours to a day and half, depending on which of the seven pre-programmed settings are selected.

Three of those programs use Exposure's Reflex 2.0 technology, which uses onboard accelerometers to calculate when you’re riding downhill or rough terrain and will automatically boost the light's output to max. It will then automatically go back to its regular output when things calm down and dim significantly if you stop.

Self-rationing run times are also slightly easier on the Mk15 thanks to a new colour OLED screen on the back of the light (previous versions had a monotone LED display). The displayed run times (Reflex is by its nature something of a lottery) are actually accurate too, which isn't always the case with other lights. The screen background colour also changes 'traffic light style' as your remaining runtime ticks down.

The big practical news for this update is that the SixPack 15 swaps its bespoke charger and plug design for USB-C. That means it can be fast-charged (minimum claimed time is five hours) from any appropriate socket/plug setup. The light can also be used as an emergency power bank for other USB-C devices.

Exposure has also introduced a new handlebar bracket. The hinged clamp with clip-in inserts for 31.8 or 35mm bars is definitely easier to fit than the previous jigsaw design, and the forward-projecting arm that holds the light is longer for improved clearance on crowded bars. Our test sample had wobble in the projecting arm bolt to start with, but that was sorted by tightening to the maximum torque of 6Nm (it's not marked on the clamp, but we checked with Exposure). Both the steel arm and bar band bolts screw into alloy threads, so be sure to use a torque wrench so you don't strip the threads.

Other mounting options come in the form of stem bolt and GoPro-style mounts available separately from Exposure, but the sheer bulk of the Six Pack means they won't work on some bikes. Whatever mount you choose, the triangular shoe on the underside of the light that engages with the QR mount is a potential weak link. The connection is again a short steel bolt into alloy threads. That creates another torque tightrope between security and stripping, and we'd advise regular checks that it's tight.

Mounting issues aside, the light output from the multiple LED's is excellent with the Six Pack's seven preset programs. Program 1 provides the brightest illumination and benefits from the Reflex 2.0 technology. The 4240-lumen output in the High setting is very impressive, providing a broad beam pattern to capture all the trail features directly in front of you. This gives at least 25 meters of illumination down the trail and a good spread to the sides. Once the onboard sensors have detected you’re heading downhill, the output seamlessly increases to the maximum 6,000 lumens. That's more than enough for most trails, though, so I generally run the light in lower power settings (Program 2 or 3) to avoid any run-time anxiety.

Exposure's quoted run times are actually around 10 percent short of what I got in testing. Even once the counter runs to zero, the Six Pack still gives 30 minutes of low-power 'Reserve' light to limp you home too.

The customer support from Exposure has a reputation for being equally helpful with reasonably priced repairs and spares, as well as a generous warranty program. I even know of several Exposure lights still in circulation literally decades after being bought, which is a big plus in terms of value.

There’s no avoiding the fact that the Six Pack is expensive, but the beam is outstanding for a self-contained light. The new screen and USB-C functionality are useful upgrades, and long-term customer support is top-class.

Best XC front mountain bike light

The Race is a lightweight, focused beam light that has been in Exposure's range for decades. This Mk19 is the lightest (222g) and most compact (107mm long and 41mm in diameter at the bright end) version they've made. It still uses their trademark machined alloy cylinder design with carved ribs for cooling, two LEDs at the front and a new coloured OLED screen at the back. Exposure has also introduced USB-C charging on all their latest-generation lights and you get a high-quality fast charger included with the Race.

Peak output is 2,650 lumens in the brightest of the three automatic movement-sensing, self-dimming Reflex+ modes. That drops to 1,800 lumens in the brightest of the four manual modes. The relatively narrow 14-degree spot beam flatters those numbers in terms of distance you can see on simple, straight trails. The sharp cut-off and lack of peripheral coverage can get 'Blair Witch' very quickly on more twisty tech though. That means you'd be better off with the Toro, MaxxD, or the Six Pack (see above) for trail use.

While the brighter colours make reading runtimes easier, the OLED screen on the back of the light is still harder to see than a top-mounted screen. While it's hard to read the digits as you ride, you can't miss the background colour changing from green to yellow to red as your remaining runtime ticks down.

The Reflex+ mode on my sample light would only dim after being totally stationary for several minutes though, rather than when it sensed smoother/slower riding. That meant the claimed three-hour run time dropped dramatically to around an hour. I've had better luck with Reflex on other Exposure lights though, and Will didn't experience issues with his Race sample during testing.

I did have the same potential wobble and bolt-strip concerns with the new bar bracket with the Race as I did with the Six Pack. Although the much lighter weight of the Race means it's all stayed put OK so far.

Looking at the other options in this list from Lezyne, Ravemen and Magicshine will underline the Exposure price premium you're paying for a light that isn't perfect. They are made in the UK with a three-year warranty though. Plus, Exposure has an excellent reputation for repairing faulty lights or refreshing batteries, etc., at reasonable prices, even decades after they've been bought, which is worth factoring in when deciding which light to go for.

Best trail/enduro front mountain bike light

US firm Outbound Lighting is relatively new but is already floating on a raft of rave reviews from users. The Trail Evo is the flagship design of their 'broader is better' philosophy. Translating medium numbers on paper into outstanding night vision on the trail.

The secret lies in the nine double-row LEDs and broad, ribbed flood optic, which spreads light really well across the trail. The carefully curated (and extensively tested) multi-point light delivery means the 3D representation of the trail is excellent, rather than it being flattened by concentrated light.

While it's brighter in the centre for reasonable reach, it dims progressively to the periphery just as your own vision does, and the colour temperature is very natural too. There are no bright spots, dark spots, or other optical glitches to distort your read of the trail either. That all means that while the headline lumens are relatively low, the 'feels like riding in the day' result is outstanding, even compared to much brighter lights.

The transverse rather than inline (torch style) design mounts the battery across the back of the lights. Critically, they're separated by cooling airflow from a big chin scoop so the LEDs and battery stay efficient rather than cooking. Once you've got it bolted into place and learned the clip-in knack, the light is held centrally in front of the stem and it's totally wobble-free too. There's even an optional cable clip to make sure all your control lines stay out of the way under the light.

The final cunning trick is the default Adaptive mode that starts the light at full power and then throttles it back to medium as your eyes adapt. That keeps actual vision levels the same but extends the run time by an hour. Alternatively, you can 'epic up' your Trail Evo by using a plug-in USB-C battery to pass-through charge while you're riding.

Compared to the screen-equipped lights, the four LED 'traffic light' battery communication is basic, and there are only three modes to switch between. That's all you really need, though and the reliability and run time gains from a simpler system are a real practical bonus. My tested run times were 10 percent longer than Outbound claim too, which is a nice change.

Considering it's handmade in the US and the customer support is outstanding by all reports, pricing is excellent, and they offer bundle deals on helmet and handlebar combos too. Unfortunately, shipping to the UK and Europe is expensive, so be sure to factor that into any buying decisions.

Best budget front mountain bike light

Ravemen's PR2400 has been my top value choice for a decent beam with really useful smart tech and outstanding reliability for years.

Illumination comes from one powerful central refracted LED and four corner spot lights. The MTB mode uses all of these LEDs to give a good balance of width and reach in three 2,400 to 600 lumen outputs. There is a slight central hot spot if you're being picky, but it's not enough to be distracting and the three modes mean you're covered for crazy, cruising and crawling. There's also a road bike menu which just uses the diffused central LED four 900 to 100 lumen outputs. These are all controlled through two central top side buttons which are easy to use with gloves, but you also get a wireless remote switch included too.

A simple but bright OLED screen gives accurate run time and charging information. This is invaluable for rationing the adequate but not amazing run time, so in reality, 3-hour mixed terrain rides aren't an issue. You can also plug a power bank (or e-bike) into the back of the light to boost run times or use the light itself as a power bank.

Sturdy metal flaps over the charge ports give class-leading IPX8 waterproofing and in several years of using several PR2400s intensively, I've never had a single reliability issue. Battery life has stayed decent too, so they're obviously using quality cells.

The previous downside of a round bar-only mount has now been sorted with an optional 'universal' band-on strap for flat/aero bars. Either way, you can slide the light on and off and leave the mount in place so you're not resetting angles and tightening clamps every ride. That leaves only the lack of a top lip/peak as a potential dazzle hazard if you're climbing out of the saddle, but that's a really niche niggle.

The result is an absolutely outstanding all-round, on- or off-road light with a very well-proven reputation at an excellent price.

Best front mountain bike light for beam power

If you want maximum trail illumination, then the Magicshine Monteer 12000 is the light for you. As the name suggests, it kicks out a huge 12,000 maximum lumen – which is more than twice as much as any other light in this article.

The twin clamps on the lamp are designed for 35mm bars, but you get shims in the box to fit thinner diameters, while the separate battery pack has Velcro straps for mounting to your top tube.

The light can be toggled between four different output settings – 12,000, 6,000, 3,000, 1,000 lumen – with claimed 2.1, 7, 11.5, 37 hour run-times respectively. In testing, we mostly used the light in its 6,000 lumen setting on the trail, as the highest setting was so bright, light would bounce back off trees and other nearby objects making it more difficult to see. But on fireroads and open sections, the full power beam extends further and wider than anything else we've used.

Our reviewer, Paul Burwell summed up the Monteer 12000: "With this much power on tap, you can ride as fast at night as you do during the day. And at under $500 you’re doing it for less too."

For more on this light, see our full Magicshine Monteer 12000 review.

Best easy to fit front mountain bike light

My top-rated, top-value grab-and-go light for years now, the Lezyne 2400+ is a great example of why simple can sometimes be best.

Simple doesn't mean low quality, though and the five LEDs (three medium, two big), built-in battery and CNC-machined casing are all top gear. The output is concentrated on well-graded fill rather than focused for far too, so it's great for twisty, techy trails. There's even a top lip to shield your eyes from glare when you're out of the saddle.

While there's four steady (300 – 2,400 lumen) and four flashing (700 – 20 lumen) modes in the default setting, selecting between them is a nightmare to navigate on the trail.

Race mode is much better; this toggles between 2,400 lumen full power for the sketchy sections or 700 lumen cruise with a single button push. It'll remember if you had it in 'Race mode' when you switch it off/on again too, so you don't have to reprogram each ride.

Extensive fins and efficient design mean I had no issues with ‘thermal throttling’ either. So it keeps running bright as long as you need, rather than dimming to protect itself from overheating.

Charge/discharge communication is limited though. There’s no set up app or wireless/ wired remote options, and the milky 'orange' half-full light actually comes on at 65 percent of run time left. Even after you've emptied the red warning segment, there's still a limp mode that adds 25 minutes of emergency crawl. The high-capacity 9,600mAh battery works as a power bank, and you can 'pass through' charge the light from a USB-C power pack or e-bike battery. As always, that will reduce the otherwise excellent waterproofing rating.

While the rubber strap mount will fit on any bar shape or even a stem/fork leg, it does allow some wobble on really rough terrain. If you find this distracting, then it's definitely worth getting the more secure round bar band mount.

Best mountain bike helmet light

Meet a serious UK mountain biker at night and they'll almost certainly have an Exposure light of some sort on their helmet. And while the range has now been expanded with the more powerful Diablo and Zenith options, the 105g, 1,200 lumen Joystick is still the lightweight icon.

As it's a dedicated helmet light, the beam uses a single high-power LED behind a focused optic to maximise targeted reach. There's still enough peripheral coverage to stop it being disorienting in complicated trail situations or disrupting the fill from a bar-mounted light though.

The ultra-low weight means it basically disappears on your helmet in terms of neck strain. The ingenious double-disc vent clamp now gets a GoPro-style joint for better articulation too. You will need to check that your helmet has a suitable central vent to mount it symmetrically; otherwise you'll need a glue-on base plate.

Run-time and recharge communication is still through a single traffic light LED system, but the 18th version of the Joystick introduces super-fast USB-C recharging.

You can also run the light with a power pack attached, which is super useful for extending the inevitably short run times of the internal cell.

Run times can be managed through the six different 'OMS+' mode menus. The 'tap the light' mode change tech is theoretically great for switching between modes too. You need to set it to the appropriate sensitivity level for your riding though, or it can start self-switching on rough sections of trail – which is the last thing you want.

I've found button operation of this Joystick - and other Exposure lights can be niggly and unit reliability can be variable. But you can always rely on Exposure to look after you in the event of an issue. So while initial cost might seem very high for the bare performance figures, you should factor the long likely lifespan of your light into the value equation.

Best trail/enduro mountain bike helmet light

Outbound Lighting offers two US-made helmet lights, but the Portal tested here is the one you want for standout illumination of technical trails.

That's because the five-LED array behind the super-smart optics gives an outstandingly natural and easily interpreted 'read' of the terrain in front of you. Not just from the '3D render' effect of the multiple light sources rather than a shadowy single point source, but also because of the carefully calibrated colour temperature of the LEDs.

The LEDs also operate at a lower current density than most designs for higher efficiency and less heat. A small fin radiator under the chin also chills things out to extend run times from the relatively small battery, so actual tested times were significantly longer than claimed.

If you're riding alone (so that no one can overshadow you from behind), the Adaptive Mode is really smart. It starts with five minutes of high beam before a gradual 30-minute dim to medium as your eyes adjust to the darkness and I genuinely struggled to notice the difference until I blipped it to full power – which then seemed overkill.

Battery and mode communication is via a four micro-LED traffic light strip with an additional low battery flash warning for the 20 min 'get you home' limp mode. Counterintuitively, the sheer size of the stiff top button can make it hard to recognise with winter gloves at first. The need for a hefty press reduces the risk of it switching on accidentally in your kit bag etc. A wireless remote is in the pipeline too.

The low-profile design and rear-mounted 'action camera' style mount keeps the unit low on your lid so there's less chance of catching it on branches and it's very stable too. The Portal is light enough for the forward mount not to strain your neck noticeably either.

Finally, Outbound run their entire operation from design to building and customer service in the US. This includes a three-year warranty with an extended "don't-be-a-jerk" reduced cost repair service policy that covers everything - including gnarly crashes - as long as you have a great story behind it!

US manufacture does mean a hefty import duty price hike if you're buying from elsewhere though, so either find a local distributor (there currently isn't one for the UK) or buy one of Outbound's bundle deals to save a bit of money.

Best budget mountain bike helmet light

Fenix produce all sorts of high-value, high-power lights, but their compact, powerfully focused BC26R is a particularly great option for helmet use for a whole load of reasons.

Firstly, the single LED is tightly focused for a seriously impressive reach down the trail, which works great in a helmet-mounted context if you use the strapped 'action camera' style mount. You also get a really good, secure, angle-adjustable QR handlebar mount included, which works great for fast, simple gravel-style trails or road work. The lack of wider peripheral coverage reduces context and overall awareness, as well as 'see round the corner' performance on more twisty tech trails though.

My actual tested run times were half what Fenix claim, but they're still good for the size and weight. In warm weather use, the thermal throttle will often cut in to stop overheating and extend run times anyway. There are also 600, 200 and 50 lumen lower settings to eke out your energy.

As a nice practical touch, the flash mode requires a button hold rather than just a press, so you won't strobe yourself silly accidentally. However, the easy-to-press button can turn on accidentally if you chuck it in a kit bag, but on the plus side it's easy to use with winter gloves.

An accidental 'on' is easy to get around by unscrewing the end cap and pulling the single 21,700 rechargeable battery cell out too. Being able to remove and swap the battery also adds the huge advantage of being able to reload the light as many times as you have spare cells for unlimited epic potential. At under £30 a battery, that's awesome value compared to a power bank, and it doesn't compromise the excellent waterproof rating like a power bank does either.

It's worth noting that the light indicator on my sample needed some learning though, as while the green level started flashing very early, it lasts until 50 percent charge. From there, it's red until it starts flashing very shortly before it gives up entirely. Once I'd learned that, reliability has been flawless through two intensive use years. Fenix also offer a limited lifetime warranty and free five-year repair service, which improves already impressive value even more.

Best mountain bike lights comparison table

How to choose the best mountain bike lights

How we test the best mountain bike lights

Every light I've recommended here has been put through its paces for months, if not years. I've also tested generations of most of the lights featured in this buying guide. Which means the information here is not only bang up to date, but also properly trail-tested in all weathers.

Testing means beam patterns assessed at speed on tight, twisty, tree-lined singletrack as well as open moors – not just pointed down a garden. Mounts that have been rattled (and sometimes rattled loose) down the roughest descents, and crashed hard when lumens and luck have run out.

All the run times are the averaged results of multiple tests in realistic air-cooled conditions, not just pulled off manufacturers' websites or run without cooling so they overheat and throttle back. Which is why our numbers and conclusions may well differ from other results out there.

For more on Cyclingnews' testing, see our How We Test article.

Apart from the obvious requirements of a bike, smart trainer or smart bike, and a cycling app, the addition of the best indoor cycling accessories, indoor-specific clothing and shoes can add real value to your indoor sessions.

Get the Giro Cadet Indoor Cycling Shoe for just $125.95 and save $49 at Amazon.

Our pick as the best indoor cycling shoes is the Giro Cadet, and right now on Amazon they are carrying a huge 28% discount. It takes them down to just $125.95 from the usual $174.95.

For UK shoppers, the Giro Cadet is discounted to £125, from £150 at Balfe's Bikes, which is a 17% reduction there. It's only available in white, but the majority of sizes are showing as in stock.

The Giro Cadet is marketed as a dual-purpose road shoe for riding both at home and outdoors, designed to bridge the gap between road performance and indoor training. For dedicated indoor use, our gear experts picked it as the best overall choice.

Key highlights include a one-piece perforated Synchwire upper that maximises ventilation and dries quickly, keeping feet cooler during intense trainer intervals. The build also keeps things reasonably light, with a claimed weight of around 265g per shoe in a men's size 42.

While it's not as featherweight as top-tier road shoes (which often hover around 200–220g), the small weight trade-off brings versatility. The Cadet can accommodate both 2-bolt and 3-bolt cleat setups. True dual-compatibility is rare in a sleek road shoe, giving you the flexibility to clip into traditional road pedals or use 2-bolt spin-bike setups without swapping shoes.

Underneath, the Cadet features a carbon-reinforced nylon composite outsole. It strikes a sweet spot between comfort and power transfer. It's rigid enough to eliminate flex during high-wattage standing sprints, yet forgiving enough to prevent hot spots during long, static turbo sessions.

Finally, the Cadet features a quick-release BOA L6 dial that lets you pop the shoe off immediately after a session. While it skips the dual-direction micro-adjustments found on premium shoes, it keeps costs down without compromising overall performance.

If you are looking for an all-in-one indoor riding setup, then Zwift currently has 10% off the Zwift Ride V2 bundle. Or if you wish to use your own bike, there is 10% off the Wahoo Kickr Core 2 with Cog and Click.

MyWhoosh came with zombie chases, Tacx dropped the Nera smart trainer, and Zwift teased a few more Californian routes, but today’s announcement is one that’s sure to shake things up good and proper.

It comes in the form of Zwift Plus, a new higher-priced premium subscription tier that, certainly at first glance, appears to borrow features from a number of its competitors, no doubt closing the feature gap in a bid to capture a greater share of the market.

The first part is the integration of adaptive training and an artificial intelligence ‘Zwift Coach’ that can help you set a goal, analyse workouts, and adapt as time passes in line with progress.

The second part is the unveiling of new real-world video-based routes, as opposed to the virtual worlds – or digital recreations thereof – which Zwift has committed to and relied upon thus far.

Adaptive training and Zwift Coach

AI is the buzzword of the year, and it’s no surprise to see Zwift, whose headquarters lie just a stone's throw from Silicon Valley, lean into the technology.

Zwift says there’s a strong correlation between consistency and fitness gains, including three main claims:

1. Those who ride twice a week are 2.8x fitter than those who ride once every two weeks
2. Those with a 12-week streak see an increase of up to 12% in their FTP.
3. Riders on a training plan see their FTP grow by 4.15%, versus 1.97% for those without one.

The Zwift Coach, therefore, aims to get more of those people onto a plan and riding consistently, setting a plan that aligns with goals set from the outset, and then “adapts to life” in real time, as sessions are completed, failed, or skipped.

The integration of video is the second major upgrade exclusive to Plus subscribers, and despite some of Zwift’s competitors – and indeed its new subsidiary, Rouvy – offering footage filmed by users, Zwift will use footage obtained exclusively by an in-house team of videographers.

The feature will launch with 21 routes across the following destinations:

1. The French Alps: Col du Galibier, Cime de la Bonnette
2. Mallorca: Sa Calobra, Coll de Femenia
3. Tenerife: Teide Plateau
4. Western Cape: Chapman's Peak, Bains Kloof
5. Lofoten Islands: The Midnight Sun Road
6. Southern Utah: The Hogsback, Arches NP
7. The Scottish Highlands: Glen Etive

The routes will include digitally created finish line banners and blimps in the sky, bringing a touch of the familiar Zwift gameplay to users, but will ultimately bring more destinations to the Zwift world.

Pricing

The new subscription tier will be priced at a £9 / €10 / $10 / AU$15 upcharge over the current price, meaning a monthly subscription will be £26.99 / €29.99 / $29.99 / AU$44.99.

Annual subscriptions allow users to get 12 months for (almost) the price of 10. These are charged at £269.99 / $299.99 / €299.99 / $449.99.

The existing Zwift tier is still available, and the prices for that remain unchanged.

A full table of the monthly and annual prices for both Zwift subscription tiers, in ten different currencies, is outlined below.

Purchasing a high-end smart trainer can be costly, but once you have it, the additional purchases that add the real value and make the biggest differences are surprisingly affordable.

Ultimately, a well-thought-out indoor setup is about more than just the bike and trainer. Comfort, cooling, and bike protection all help you train consistently and maximise every session.

We covered the best indoor cycling accessories for under £25 / $25 earlier in the week; take a look at those as well.

Here are five useful, practical accessories priced under $50 that are worth investing in and will make your indoor cycling experience more enjoyable.

1. A bike mat

A bike mat is one of the first purchases to consider when setting up your indoor training space, particularly if you're mounting your outdoor bike on an indoor trainer.

The bike mat protects your carpet or flooring from grease, grime, or oil from your drive chain.

The bike mat also protects your flooring from sweat that accumulates during your sessions, as well as preventing deep indents in your carpet.

The mat can help contain sweat and make post-workout cleanup easier, and it's far less expensive to replace a mat than new carpet!

There is a range of mats on the market; it doesn't have to be a cycling-specific mat, and they can be found for under $50.

2. Protective floor tiles

To protect your flooring, you may want to purchase some interlocking foam floor tiles. These are a popular option that can be laid on top of your carpet or garage flooring, creating a more level, stable base, depending on the flooring.

Effectively, it helps create a solid base on which to lay your bike mat and the best platform for your smart trainer and bike.

A pack of 12 can cost $49.99, with each tile measuring 24 in x 24 in, which totals 48 square feet.

3. A Fan

A suitable fan is a must-have item for indoor cycling. Without the natural airflow you experience when riding outdoors, staying cool during indoor cycling can be a challenge, and things quickly get pretty uncomfortable.

A fan is essential for improving airflow, helping regulate your body temperature, and reducing the risk of overheating.

Choose a fan that suits your training space and budget. There is a range of fans available, but Amazon offers a basic fan for under $50 that would serve its purpose.

4. A Small, foldable camping table

A small, foldable camping table is a useful item to purchase. This may seem slightly unconventional but is highly practical and very useful when undertaking long rides, races, or intense training sessions where you can place additional bottles and snacks within easy reach.

If you aren't within easy reach of a worktop or table, an extra table makes perfect sense; supplies can be lined up and kept close when needed. The small table also functions as a place to hold a secondary fan.

When you have finished your ride, simply wipe down the table and pack it away until your next longer session.

Prices vary, but there are plenty of options available for under $50.

5. Muc-Off indoor training kit

Muc-Off offers an Indoor Training Kit, which normally retails for slightly over $50 but is currently on sale at $23.99 (usual price is slightly over $50, but such good value it’s worth including).

The Indoor Training Kit includes everything you need to keep yourself and your bike in top condition during indoor cycling sessions.

The kit features Antibacterial Equipment Cleaner to keep your training equipment fresh, Luxury Chamois Cream to help prevent chafing, and Sweat Protect to help protect your bike against sweat-related corrosion.

C3 Ceramic Dry Lube keeps your drivetrain running smoothly, while the Microfibre Cloth is ideal for cleaning and polishing your bike.

To complete the kit, a Muc-Off Tote Bag provides a convenient way to store and carry all your essentials.

Building a great indoor cycling setup doesn't have to cost a fortune. A few carefully chosen accessories can make your training sessions more comfortable, protect your flooring, and help keep your bike in good condition throughout the indoor season.

A bike mat and fan are excellent starting points, while protective floor tiles and a foldable table can make your training space more practical. Add a maintenance kit to the mix, and you'll be better equipped to handle everything from short weekday workouts to long indoor rides.

You don't need to buy everything at once. Start with the accessories that address your biggest needs, then upgrade your setup as your training demands grow. The goal is to spend wisely on products that make indoor cycling more enjoyable and hassle-free.

The AiRO app, which launched a new AI-based CFD simulation tool called Vayu on Wednesday, promises to bring aero testing to a broader audience via bike fitters across the world.

It was founded just 14 months ago, and already claims to have multiple other WorldTour teams as paying customers.

AiRO confirmed it will be working with Netcompany Ineos in 2027, and Cyclingnews understands a fuller announcement of the partnership will be made next week.

Founder, Ingmar Jungnickel – who cut his teeth with the German Olympic team, Specialized’s S-Racing division and the development of the last edition Specialized S-Works Venge – founded the company as a spin-off from a similar project he developed for the USA speedskating squad.

He ran a select group of media, including Cyclingnews, through the AiRO app, which spans road, gravel, mountain bike, and time trialling.

The app is available to anyone via specialist bike fitters for approximately $200 per session, and works by creating a 'digital twin' of each rider.

Using photographs, specialised software turns the images into a 3D simulation of the rider, which you can use to then run app-based aero experiments, such as swapping helmets or adjusting the rider’s position.

By integrating AI and its new 'Vayu' add-on, Jungnickel explains he has generated a long list of potential benefits.

One of these, which he caveats is a future innovation currently under construction, is the ability to instantly test 20+ different helmets (which have already been scanned into the app) on one rider, each in dozens of head positions, effectively recreating over 400 wind tunnel tests at the click of a button.

That might not help a team that's bound by a sponsorship agreement with KASK, but shows the potential of the technology nonetheless.

A second feature that likely does apply to Netcompany Ineos, is to immediately test over 100 small rider position changes – arms, head, shrug, etc – and order them by the available improvement. Working with the bike fitter, the rider can then replicate these positions to check whether they are actually achievable and sustainable in the real world.

The Netcompany Ineos deal is the brand’s first official partnership with a team, but based on existing work with teams, Jungnickel’s expectation is that the British squad will use it alongside real wind tunnel testing to help with testing the full squad rather than just the top riders, without the increased time and financial commitment that doing so in a wind tunnel would need.

He also says teams are excited by the opportunity to test riders' road bike positions, which he says takes longer and is less repeatable in a wind tunnel or velodrome setting.

Finally, he predicts that by having a digital twin of all the team's riders, the team will be able to quickly and cheaply test ideas, without needing the rider present.

And from there, if a new, faster position is found, but where a biomechanical concern exists, they can work with coaches and biomechanics experts to formulate a plan before the rider makes the switch and potentially causes an injury.

The full scope of the partnership is still being worked out, and details are expected to follow soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving your setup doesn’t have to be expensive, with some of the most valuable additions being the simplest and cheapest.

A few well-chosen accessories can help you stay hydrated, manage sweat, protect your bike, and ride more comfortably, all without stretching your budget.

If you are looking to make a small investment to make your indoor training more enjoyable, here are five affordable accessories, priced under £25 / $25, that deliver practical benefits and are good value for money.

You don't need to buy everything at once, either. Start with the essentials and add to your setup as needed.

1. Elite Fly Tex water bottle

A water bottle is one of the first accessories every cyclist should buy, as indoor cycling is thirsty work!

Although bottles are relatively inexpensive, investing in one or two durable options is worthwhile, particularly during the indoor training season when you'll use them regularly.

Elite supplies nearly every WorldTour cycling team in the professional peloton with bottles, so they know a thing or two about them.

Elite’s Fly Tex bottle is one of the most-used bottles in cycling, so this would be my recommendation. It's made from recyclable materials and is BPA-free.

They come in multiple colours and three different sizes: 950 ml, 750 ml, and 550 ml.

Depending on your selection, prices start at $11.99, so for $25 you could buy a couple.

2. Elite Zugaman Towel

A towel is an essential accessory, as indoor cycling is a sweaty business. Fortunately, Elite has designed one that is fit for purpose. Measuring 1,300 x 300 mm and made from 100% natural cotton, it is a practical size to hang around your neck or drape over your handlebars.

Compact and soft, it's a practical addition to any indoor training setup, helping you manage sweat throughout your session.

3. Front Wheel Riser Block

A front wheel riser block is a simple accessory that can make indoor training more comfortable.

Placed beneath your bike's front wheel when using a compatible wheel-on or direct-drive trainer setup, it helps level the bike and provides a more stable riding position.

Riser blocks are available from numerous brands and are generally inexpensive. With prices starting at around $8.99, it's an affordable way to improve your indoor cycling setup.

Whilst you can use household objects to do the same job, they can be prone to moving under effort. A riser block is simply the best tool for the job.

Before buying, check that the block is compatible with your trainer and front-wheel setup, especially if you are running gravel tyres.

4. Muc-Off Sweat Protect

Muc-Off is renowned for its cleaning products. Its Sweat Protect spray is designed to help protect bike components from corrosion associated with sweat exposure.

Using a suitable protective product can help reduce the risk of corrosion and keep your bike in better condition over time.

If you want to safeguard your bike from the potential damage caused by heavy indoor use, this is a worthwhile investment. Always follow the manufacturer's instructions and check product compatibility before applying it.

5. Wahoo Cycle Sweat Guard

Sweat can take a toll on your bike over time, particularly when it repeatedly drips onto the handlebars, frame, and components during indoor training.

The Wahoo Fitness Sweat Guard sits across your handlebars and attaches around the back of your saddle. It helps shield your bike from perspiration by catching sweat before it drips onto the frame and other components, where prolonged exposure can contribute to corrosion.

There are multiple brands on the market that sell these, but we like the Wahoo Fitness Sweat Guard.

The Wahoo Kickr V6 is undoubtedly one of the most impressive and expensive indoor smart trainers on the market. It holds the title of the best smart trainer for racing, and just narrowly missed out on the best overall to its more budget-friendly Wahoo Kickr Core 2 sibling.

Right now at Tredz you can pick up the Wahoo KICKR V6 for just £699, discounted by £75.99 from its usual £774.99.

If you're gearing up for indoor riding, you won't go wrong with either of these Wahoo offerings. However, if you want to take your indoor riding beyond fitness and casual spins, the Wahoo Kickr V6 takes things up a level, with an all-new Race Mode which uses WiFi capability to broadcast power up to 10x faster.

As well as seamless connectivity, this Wahoo Kickr deal is paired with the equally impressive Zwift Click and Cog virtual shifting system, perfect for Zwift racing. The Cog and Click is considered a significant tactical advantage, as virtual shifting changes resistance electronically at the trainer flywheel without moving the physical chain. So no risk of dropped chains, loud crunching, or hesitation that can come with a standard cassette when dumping gears during a sprint.

If you are looking for an all-in-one indoor set-up, then Zwift currently has 15% off the Zwift Ride V2 bundle. Or if you're after a more budget-friendly purchase, there is 20% off the Wahoo Kickr Core 2 with Cog and Click. You'll have to be quick, as these deals end very soon.

In his Wahoo Kickr V6 review, Cyclingnews' Associate Editor, Josh Croxton, awarded it a flawless 5 out of 5-star review. Although Josh chose to test the cassette version, the build is exactly the same as the Zwift Cog and Click version.

You get the hassle-free virtual shifting, and the Kickr's top-level specs include 2200-watt resistance, 20% gradient, +/- 1% accuracy and five-degree left-right movement courtesy of the Axis feet.

If you prefer a cassette model, then Wahoo has that available for £774.99.

This Wahoo Kickr deal is UK-only, but below you'll find the best deals available in your territory on Wahoo trainers, including the Kickr V6.

Abus may be better known for its D-locks and chains, but the German brand also has a nice line in helmets.

Founded in 1924 by August Bremicker, Abus has gradually built a helmet range that runs from race lids to kids' helmets, with a particularly strong urban line.

The Hyp-E is the brand's flagship e-bike helmet line, and it scooped a Eurobike Award in 2024. Where Abus' more basic Pedelec 2.0 helmet relies on a pull-out rain cap to fend off the elements, the Hyp-E goes one better with in-built sliding vent covers. It also goes all-in on visibility too, with integrated front and rear lights that act as indicators, triggered by a wireless remote on your handlebar.

Like its Pedelec stablemate, the Hyp-E carries Dutch NTA 8776 certification, which means it's been tested at the higher impact speeds you can reach with a motor under you, and it covers more of the head than a standard bike helmet.

The Hyp-E comes in three versions that all essentially use the same base helmet but come with increasingly flashy add-ons. The standard model reviewed here includes integrated lights, an indicator remote and a vent cover for when the weather turns. The ACE adds a magnetic flip-up visor and clip-on ear pads, and the BL.ACE adds a brake light remote on top of that. Those extras can also be bought separately, so the standard Hyp-E is effectively the base you can build up from.

I tested the standard Hyp-E on both electrically-assisted rides around town, as well as on my 40-minute, pedal-powered commute. Being early autumn, I enjoyed some warmer rides but was also faced with some biblical downpours, so the helmet got properly put to the test.

Design and aesthetics 

By design, the e-bike helmet is a bigger piece of kit than the everyday commuter helmet. The NTA 8776 certificate dictates that the shell needs to cover a larger proportion of the head. Add to that some integrated lights and vent covers and the size and weight is only going one way.

While the Hyp-E isn’t the bulkiest design on the market, it’s not exactly petite either. It’s not as streamlined as the Pedelec 2.0, but it’s not as big as some of the other smart helmet options, such as the Unit 1 Aura.

Abus calls the construction a multishell design, as part of the outer surface uses a tougher hard shell while the rest is a thinner in-mould polycarbonate layer. A polycarbonate strip also wraps the lower edge to protect against scuffs, which is welcomed by the tester as it will inevitably end up being knocked about a bit.

The lights are undeniably the stars of the show. Rather than clipping on as an afterthought, the front and rear LED strips are moulded into the shell, sitting flush with the contours. With the lights switched off, the helmet looks clean and tidy. With them on, you're highly visible.

The outer shell comes down lower at the temples and the back of the head than a standard helmet, as required by the NTA 8776 standard. Up top, the vents are generous by urban helmet standards, and the Hyp-E comes with a vent cover that slides over them when the weather turns.

Out of the box, the standard Hyp-E is the most stripped-back version of the three helmets in this range. There's no visor or ear pads to bulk it out, just the shell, the lights and a set of MagneticHub mounting points at the front. Those points are there so you can add Abus's magnetic visor, in clear, smoke or photochromic, and the clip-on Ear Pads (also sold separately). Add both and the Hyp-E takes on a distinctly motorcycle-like look, which personally feels a bit much, especially if you plan on using it on pedal-powered rides.

The standard Hyp-E also has the widest choice of colours in the range, giving you a choice between evocative names such as Champagne Gold, Jungle Green and Volcano Titan. The Midnight Blue that I tested had a nice matte finish across the shell, with a grey rear section housing the rear light, with some subtle touches of exposed EPS.

Components and build

As soon as you pick up the Hyp-E, you’ll notice how robust it feels. Abus combines both in-mould and hard-shell production methods, which is why the helmet appears to have two distinct sections. The in-mould process fuses the EPS liner into a thin polycarbonate outer during production, while the hard-shell process involves manufacturing the liner and outer shell separately and then sticking them together. The in-mould process gives the Hyp-E its protective lower edge and rear section, while the hard shell allows for the slidable vents.

Safety is underpinned by NTA 8776, the Dutch e-bike standard that requires testing at higher impact speeds and extra coverage around the temples and back of the head. The helmet also carries CE and US CPSC certification. What it doesn't have is MIPS or any other rotational impact system, which is a notable omission at this price, and there's no Virginia Tech rating to back up the protection claims either.

The headline feature, of course, is the lighting. Rather than offering clip-on units, the front and rear LEDs are integrated into the shell, come with six modes – steady, power, flow, pulse, flash and eco – and boast an output of up to 50 lumens. Runtime ranges from a claimed minimum of two hours on the brightest steady setting to 40 hours in flashing mode, and the lithium-polymer battery takes around four hours to charge via USB-C. That's a welcome step up from the Micro-USB port and 10 lumens on the Abus Pedelec 2.0.

As well as providing a good source of visibility, the lights double as indicators, and the helmet comes with a wireless remote that straps to your handlebar. Pressing either button triggers a sequential sweep on the relevant side of the helmet, front and rear. Press both at once and you get a hazard-warning function. The remote is simple and connects via a radio link system, rather than Bluetooth, so there's no app to set up.

The standard Hyp-E doesn't include the brake light remote, which comes with the top-tier BL.ACE. Rather than relying on an accelerometer to guess when you're slowing down, Abus's brake light uses a rubberised cap that slips over your brake lever and fires when you pull it. It can be bought separately if you want to add it later.

Fit is handled by the Zoom Spin dial system, which uses a full headring and is height-adjustable, with an opening to accommodate ponytails. Abus's strap dividers lock in place below the ears, and they fasten with a magnetic buckle that can be opened one-handed.

Ventilation comes from three closable intakes on top of the helmet and two exhausts at the rear. The intakes are backed by bug mesh, and the included Vent Cover clips over them to block out rain, wind and cold. If you find you want more weather protection, the Hyp-E can be upgraded with the visor and ear pads that come with the Hyp-E ACE.

Even without those extras, the Hyp-E is no featherweight. At a claimed 580g for a medium, it weighs considerably more than the 350g Pedelec 2.0 and sits at the heavier end of the e-bike helmet category. That's the price you pay for high-quality integrated lights and battery.

Performance

I’ve been testing a lot of different e-bike helmets over the last six months, and picking my favourites for the best e-bike helmets has been a tough task. While the Hyp-E didn’t quite make the cut, it still performed extremely well in a range of conditions.

My top two criteria when researching helmets are safety and comfort. While I’m not paid nearly enough to put the Hyp-E’s safety credentials fully to the test, you can rest assured that some thorough testing has been carried out by people far more qualified than me. The NTA 8776 certificate is the gold standard when it comes to e-bike lids, and I would hesitate in recommending a helmet without it.

When it comes to comfort, there is of course an element of subjectivity, and to go some way to mitigating that, I did pass my Abus round a few friends for a second opinion. The consensus is that it is a pretty comfy piece of kit.

The Hyp-E uses a full 360-degree headring within the cradle, which means that any pressure that comes from tightening the dial adjust should be spread out, rather than being applied from the front or back, which can be the case with 180-degree rings. The fact that the rear section and dial adjust can be moved up and down only adds to the level of customisation when it comes to fit. It also allows for ponytails.

The strap doesn’t boast the reflective thread like the Pedelec 2.0, but otherwise it’s got some nice touches. The magnetic buckle is an advancement in fastening that I am fully on board with. Being able to unbuckle one-handed when you come crashing through the door after a wet and windy commute is the kind of small win I am here for. In addition, the soft chin guard beneath the buckle is held in place by Velcro, which saves you having to line it up every time you do the thing up.

For me, the two big plus points on the Hyp-E are the retractable vents and the integrated lights. Abus have clearly set out to make a line of e-bike helmets for all seasons and conditions. By including three big front vents, it has done what so many modern e-bike helmet manufacturers have failed to do, and allow sufficient airflow for warmer days. But by adding the slide-down covers, the design accounts for wet, cold and windy days, too. Abus has done this on the Pedelec 2.0 as well, although the cover comes in the shape of a tiny anorak which packs into a compartment at the rear of the shell.

In testing, the vents did exactly what they were designed to do, letting a decent amount of air in at the front and out through the rear. The vent covers are easy to close while riding, with a single slider fitted at the top of the shell.

Having tested this during early autumn, I was faced with a decision on those wet-but-still-warm rides. With the vents closed, the airflow is completely shut down, so it does get a bit warm. Honourable mention here to the Lazer Verde which has tried (with limited success) to create vents that both let air in but keep rain out. The Pedelec’s anorak should probably get another mention here, as that does at least allow some breathability.

With the nights starting to draw in, I was really glad to have the option of extremely effective integrated front and rear lights. At 50 lumens these aren’t the brightest (honourable nod to the Unit 1 Aura), but when it gets properly dark they really stand out. In addition, they wrap a long way round the shell, giving you a better chance of being seen by vehicles approaching from the side.

Once you get to know the button and the modes, it’s easy enough to operate whilst riding, and the USB-C charger means you’re not forever hunting through drawers for an old lead.

I’m a big fan of these lights, and while I’d always recommend pairing them with some decent bike lights as well, the extra visibility goes a long way. As far as the indicators go, I’m not fully convinced turn signals via a helmet light is something drivers are fully tuned into, but that will inevitably change if and when the technology becomes more widely used.

The indicators on the Hyp-E go produce a very clear flashing light on the right or left of the helmet, and the colour switches from red to yellow. This means anyone paying attention will see a pretty distinct signal, as opposed to mistaking it for just another mode. The handlebar-mounted switch was easily paired with the helmet in a matter of seconds, and also charges via USB-C.

I didn’t get a chance to fully put Abus’ claims around helmet battery life to the test, but the lowest output mode (which I assume gets you the maximum 40 hours of charge) is frankly pretty crap compared to the other settings. So I would assume the time between charges to be considerably shorter than that.

One drawback of the Hyp-E is that it’s pretty heavy, which is to be expected when you include such good lighting. It weighs a full 200g more than the Pedelec, which is ultimately one of the reasons its little cousin made it into the final list of favourites ahead of this one. While e-biking between school and nursery, I didn’t really notice it, as these are 20-minute rides and I sit more upright, but head down on my pedal-powered commute, I did notice the difference compared to my regular lid.

Value

The Hyp-E currently retails at around £159, putting it just about in the top end when it comes to e-bike specific helmets. If you want to add the bells and whistles (not literally) you could fork out £199 for the ACE or £230 for the top-spec BL.ACE.

For that money, you get integrated front and rear lights, indicators with a handlebar remote, a vent cover, USB-C charging and NTA 8776 certification. That's actually quite a lot of tech for well under £200. The missing pieces are MIPS or any rotational protection, a Virginia Tech score, but you’re still getting a good return on your investment.

If you don't need indicators and you want to trim the weight, Abus's own Pedelec 2.0 costs around £150 to £160, weighs significantly less and has a clever integrated rain cap, but its 10-lumen rear light is a big step down.

The Smith Dispatch MIPS costs £155 and combines MIPS, Koroyd and NTA 8776 certification with an included clip-on rear light, all at 394g. Personally, I love the Dispatch, but it lacks the front light and vent covers. The Giro Camden MIPS costs around £120 and pairs NTA 8776 and MIPS with a big rear light and does have vents you can close.

The most direct rival is probably the Unit 1 Aura MIPS. At £200, it costs a little more but adds MIPS and a full five-star Virginia Tech rating to NTA 8776 certification. Its eye-catching 350-lumen front and rear lights charge via USB-C, and it also offers crash detection. It's heavier still at 610g, though, and the indicator remote isn't included as standard.

Verdict

If being seen is your top priority, the Hyp-E is one of the most complete packages on the market at this price. Integrated front and rear lights, indicators and a remote all come as standard for less than many rivals charge for a helmet with a single rear light.

It also scores highly in the helmet-for-all-seasons category, with the large vents offering enough airflow on warm days and the retractable covers giving you the option of shutting out the elements.

Despite the weight, which is pretty significant, I also found it otherwise really comfortable, as did a few friends (albeit not for long periods). The full 360-degree headring (which isn’t a given at this price point) and adjustable rear section make finding a snug fit nice and easy.

Add to the mix the USB-C charging port and the magnetic buckle, and the Hyp-E is suddenly ticking a lot of boxes.

While it comes badged with the NTA 8776, the lack of MIPS is a real omission, and the Unit 1 Aura offers more independently verified protection for not much more money. But if visibility, ventilation and comfort matter most, the HYP-E makes a strong case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Design and aesthetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintenance and servicing

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

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

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

Value

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

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

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

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

Verdict

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

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

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

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

It's indoor cycling week at Cyclingnews this week, and we will be publishing a wide and varied range of indoor-themed content to give you lots of great ideas for this winter.

You've invested in one of the best smart trainers, but what next? There are some other things to consider when getting ready to ride regularly indoors.

Maybe you're setting up your training area for a winter of structured training and group rides, or are building the ultimate e-racing rig.

Perhaps you’ve purchased a new smart trainer with the Zwift Cog and Click pre-installed and have activated your trial membership included with your purchase;

This checklist covers the essential items and practical tips that will help you start strong, avoid common beginner mistakes, and get the most from your training from day one.

1. Choose your location

Indoor cycling is a sweaty business, so you will need to think carefully about where you set up your bike and smart trainer. A gruelling interval session in the living room while the rest of the family is trying to watch television may not go down too well!

Ideally, choose a space where you can train without disturbing others and have enough room for your accessories, especially your cooling equipment.

Ventilation is equally important. A room with an open window, good airflow or air conditioning can make a significant difference to your comfort. A dedicated basement setup might seem ideal, but without adequate airflow, it can quickly become an uncomfortable place to train.

2. Invest in a fan

A fan is one of the most important accessories for indoor cycling. Without the airflow you experience when riding outdoors, you can struggle to keep cool, and it's generally a more uncomfortable experience. Having a fan is a good idea and helps prevent overheating.

Choose a fan that is optimal for your training space. There are dedicated indoor cycling fans with remote controls and adjustable settings, but a suitable household fan can also perform the necessary function.

3. Floor protection

A protective mat beneath your bike and trainer is a worthwhile investment. It helps protect your flooring from sweat, dirt, grease and other grime that can accumulate during indoor sessions. This is particularly important if you are using your outdoor bike on the trainer, and especially if the drivetrain is oily.

Replacing an inexpensive mat is much easier than dealing with a stained carpet or damaged floor, and I wouldn't even attempt a session unless you have a mat.

4. Grab a towel

A towel is essential, and if you are doing a long session, you may need two. Even if you have the most optimal bike position and the best fan, you still will find yourself sweating quite a lot, especially during longer rides and high-intensity intervals.

Keep a towel within easy reach to wipe your face and hands, helping you maintain a comfortable grip on the handlebars. For longer sessions, having a second towel available can be useful.

5. Prepare at least one drink bottle

Staying hydrated is important, and you will lose a lot of fluid through sweating when riding indoors. You may find yourself drinking substantially more than you do on a ride outside, so ensure you have full bottles within easy reach.

For longer or harder sessions, consider whether you also need to replace electrolytes, particularly sodium, lost through sweat.

6. Clothing

Don't overdress; less is more. As we have established, you are going to get hot. Wearing your normal bib shorts and jersey may be too much. A pair of cycling shorts without the straps and a simple vest or breathable top can be a good idea.

The key is to choose breathable clothing that helps you stay comfortable as your body temperature rises; it won't take many rides to learn what works for you.

7. Ready your phone and chosen companion app

Many indoor cycling platforms offer companion apps that provide additional functionality and make the experience more interactive.

For example, Zwift Companion allows you to interact with other riders, join events, send messages and access additional in-game controls. Depending on the platform, a companion app may also make it easier to manage workouts, view activity information, or interact with the virtual environment.

Keep your phone charged and somewhere convenient, such as on a nearby table or handlebar mount, so you can access the features you need without interrupting your ride.

8. Be Patient

Indoor cycling is a discipline in its own right, and there is a learning curve when you first get started.

Each platform has its own strengths, features and quirks. Some focus on structured training, while others place emphasis on virtual worlds, realistic simulations or social riding.

Take advantage of the different free trials that are on offer and be patient as you learn the different nuances of each platform. Be patient and enjoy the journey as you immerse yourself in this new discipline.

9. Connect your training platform to your activity log

Make sure your rides are logged so you can keep track of training and record your progress. If you work with a cycling coach, this will also help them see your sessions and make life easier.

Depending on the platforms you use, you may be able to connect your indoor cycling account to services such as Strava, Garmin Connect, TrainingPeaks or Vekta. This can help you consolidate your activities, analyse your training and monitor your progress over time.

Check which integrations are supported by your chosen platform and make sure your accounts are connected correctly. It’s also worth checking that activities aren’t being uploaded twice if multiple devices or services are recording the same ride.

Indoor training counts just as much as outdoor riding, so make sure your efforts are captured.

10. Join a club and find your community

One of the great things about indoor cycling is that platforms such as Zwift, TrainingPeaks Virtual, MyWhoosh, and ROUVY connect you with a global community of cyclists.

Each platform offers a wide range of clubs and communities you can join, making it easy to meet like-minded riders, take part in group rides, and share your passion for cycling.

Being part of a community can also help you stay motivated, establish a routine and make indoor cycling a more social and enjoyable experience.

Ready to ride?

Getting your indoor cycling setup right can make a real difference to your comfort, motivation and enjoyment. With good ventilation, a fan, floor protection, plenty of fluids and the right apps connected, you'll be well prepared for your first session.

Take the time to explore your chosen platform, find a community that suits you and, most importantly, enjoy the ride.

If you live in a flat or apartment, creating an indoor training space may require some consideration to find the perfect training space and to ensure no unnecessary noise or vibration reaches your neighbours.

The good news is that indoor training is entirely achievable with a little planning. This guide is designed to help you create a comfortable, practical indoor cycling setup that doesn’t upset your neighbours or landlord.

It's indoor cycling week here at Cyclingnews; you can find lots more indoor-themed content in our indoor cycling week hub.

1. Choose the right setup

Decide whether to connect your outdoor bike to one of the best smart trainers, invest in a dedicated indoor cycling frame, or opt for a complete smart bike.

For occasional use, connecting your outdoor bike to a smart trainer is practical and cost-effective. A dedicated indoor setup, like the Zwift Ride or Elite Square, offers a permanent solution without tying up your outdoor bike.

A smart bike, such as the WattBike Proton, is another option, but ensure it fits into your flat.

Available space is key. If you have a smaller flat, you might not have room for both your outdoor bike and a dedicated indoor setup. Consider how much space you allocate to training and if equipment can be stored away.

2. Choose your training location carefully

The training location is as important as the equipment. Do you have a spare room, or will the bike be in the living room? Ideally, choose a spot with enough room to ride comfortably without obstructing walkways. A location near a window provides ventilation and helps keep the room cool.

Consider the flooring too; a solid floor may be better than one that amplifies vibration or makes your trainer unstable. If you live upstairs, remember that vibrations can travel through the building, even if the trainer seems quiet.

3. Consider the type of smart trainer

If you're not getting a smart bike, choosing the right smart trainer is crucial.

Noise can be a key concern for people. Research noise levels and read reviews to avoid a noisy early-morning training session.

Footprint is another factor. Some trainers, like the Tacx NEO 2T, have a substantial base, so check dimensions.

Also, consider if the trainer can be folded or easily stored. In a small flat, easy-to-pack-away equipment makes a big difference.

4. Protect your flooring and reduce noise

Protecting your flooring is essential when renting. Sweat can damage finishes, while dirt, grease, and chain lubricant can stain.

A dedicated indoor cycling mat catches sweat and debris, simplifying cleanup. It may also help reduce some vibration.

For added protection, consider rubber flooring or anti-vibration mats beneath your trainer. These can reduce vibration transmission, though results vary by building, flooring, and equipment.

Ensure materials are compatible with your flooring and provide a stable base. This prevents risking your rental deposit.

5. Clean your bike before training indoors

If using your outdoor bike, clean it thoroughly before bringing it inside. Dirt, road grime, and excess chain lubricant can end up on floors, walls, and furniture.

Focus on the drivetrain. A clean chain is important. If lubricating, apply sparingly and wipe away excess. Too much lubricant attracts dirt and can be flung off.