Scope has risen in prevalence over the last few years, with WorldTour teams opting to use its fish scale inspired Artech wheels ahead of sponsor correct equipment, and Netcompany-Ineos partnering with them for the 2026 season. The Artech 6.A wheels even tested fastest in our 2024 round of wind tunnel wheelset testing.

The Scope R4.G represents the more wallet friendly option in the brand's gravel wheel line-up, which includes this, and the Artech 4.G.

It uses similar technologies and profiles to the Artech, but at a weight cost. A modern, wide internal and external hookless rim is used, making it comparable with several other carbon gravel wheelsets in this price bracket.

Additionally, sealed bearings, a reinforced rim, and no weight limit sets the wheels up nicely to be resilient across rugged gravel terrain, and my impressions from testing them has supported that. The weight is highly competitive with others in this bracket, while the aero performance with 45mm tyres results in very little speed loss versus a road wheelset on tarmac.

My only gripes are the rotors being a nightmare to fit and remove, and the freehub wailing like a banshee, making me feel self-conscious when riding down the residential street at unsociable hours.

But overall, these are a superb set of gravel wheels that offer fantastic value, and truly deserve a place in our buying guide to the best gravel bike wheels. What's more, they would be brilliantly paired with any of the best gravel race bikes, especially better value offerings.

Design and specifications

The Scope R4.G wheels are built using what Scope calls Algorithm Enhanced Aerodynamics (AEA), the same process used to develop the Artech rims. This process runs through different rim profile designs at different wind speeds and angles to devise the fastest solution. Although no fish scale rim profiles are present in the R4.G, many of the technologies from the very fast Artech wheels are applied.

The rim uses a 45mm tall rim with hookless beads, with an internal width of 28mm and external width of 38mm (albeit 27.08mm and 37.04mm measured though on my calipers).

This does place them among the wider offerings on the market and is designed to work best with tyres at 40mm and wider (35-60mm is the claimed width that these wheels can be used with).

The rim has also been specifically reinforced around the spoke holes, adding strength where needed without excessive carbon where it is not required.

Spoke lacing is a 2:1 two-cross at the front on the rotor side, radial on the drive side with 21 spokes total, while the rear is a 2:1 two-cross pattern on the drive side and one-cross on the rotor side, with 24 Sapim CX-ray alloy spokes.

This asymmetric spoke lacing, cross pattern, and number is aimed to balance the wheel against the forces of both braking and also drivetrain torque.

The hubs are Scope’s own R-Series hubs, and use a labyrinth system which essentially aims to block dirt from entering the hubs and bearings thus increasing longevity.

Internally a 36 tooth Diamond Ratchet SL is used. This 10 degree engagement is a bit higher (and thus slower) than some, but there are claims that fewer teeth results in greater ratchet longevity, and when keeping pressure on the pedals it has little impact on performance compared to higher counts.

The diamond carbon like coating is designed to prevent cassette bite into the free-hub body, while also reducing the weight. Claimed weight is 1,436g without tape or valves, while actual weight on my scales was 1,444g with tape and valves, so lighter than claimed.

Two decal options are available, with black or white options. Hub options range across Shimano and Shimano Microspline, SRAM XDR, Campagnolo, and Campagnolo N3W. Tubeless valves and rim tape are provided, but not lock-rings.

Performance

Fitting the tyres to the Scope R4.G was a nicel and simple affair. The 45mm Panaracer GravelKing ZX I use for gravel wheel tests can be a little tough to fit, but in this situation were able to be fitted without the need for levers. Given the wide and hookless rim, this was easier than I have found on similar gravel rims, while the tyres seated easily enough as well.

One area worth highlighting however was that the rotors are a pain to fit. The same system is used as on the Artech wheels, a lighter weight spline for the rotors, but it almost appeared slightly misaligned making them harder to fit than would be considered normal.

Getting out on the wheels, there are two things that are apparent pretty quickly when riding them; the ratchet engagement is a little sluggish by comparison to high tooth competitors, and the freehub is the loudest one I have ever used.

The ratchet uses a 36-tooth engagement, meaning it takes at most 10° of pedalling to engage the freehub. Hunt for example uses a 54-tooth ratchet, which means faster engagement. It’s only really noticeable when riding in scenarios where you are on and off the power regularly, so more techy terrain with lots of non-pedalling corners. Once rolling at speed, it makes little difference, and the Diamond Star ratchet Scope uses is extremely solid. I have tested a lot of Scope wheels, and the ratchet has never displayed any form of slip, and has proven to be very resilient.

The freehub noise is an interesting point. For early morning rides as I approach the end of my street, I found myself choosing to pedal while braking to avoid waking the entire street.

On the flip side, when riding shared trails with pedestrians, the freehub works better than any bell at alerting people to my presence. Coast for a few seconds and pedestrians a good 100m ahead turn around wondering why an angry hoard of hornets is approaching them.

I know some people enjoy a loud freehub, but this is a bit beyond my personal preference. I much prefer the almost silent running of the Campagnolo freehubs, but credit where credit is due, it acts as a fantastic alert when riding the trails. People will not miss you coming.

In terms of performance though, I am thoroughly impressed with these wheels. Scope might have gained more fame through the Artech wheels with fish scales and top level aero performance, but the R range of wheels are less than half the price and have most of the same performance.

I’ve even bought several pairs over the years, so can attest to putting my money where my mouth is. With the 45mm tyres fitted, measuring a shade under that width, and a 37mm external width, the wheels roll superbly and hold speed well. Going on the tarmac to head to the trails, the speed between these wheels and standard road wheels fitted is not massively different.

I’d say for most gravel this 40-45mm depth range is a very good balance for light enough to accelerate quickly and climb quickly, but deep enough to have some meaningful aero performance at speed.

At 1,444g for a 45mm depth, these are competitively lightweight wheels, and this does show when riding. The thing with gravel is that generally the climbs are tackled slower than tarmac for the same gradient, and gradients can ramp up quickly. This means lower wheel inertia, and weight requires more effort to accelerate up to speed.

Add heavier wider gravel tyres into the mix, and having a lighter rim can make more of a difference off-road than on tarmac. I’ve found the Scope R4.G climb very well, and the strong lateral stiffness also helps maintain a connected feel especially when mashing the pedals on more loose and rocky climbs. This lateral stiffness is most noticeable on the road, as cushioned low PSI wide tyres on gravel always take away an element of reactiveness of the wheels.

Although hookless, and me being a long term hookless sceptic, for gravel wheels with low pressures the system does work well. The tyres have maintained pressure, and going over some horrendously rough terrain and root infested trails, there have been no signs of tyre burps or pinches, and the rim has held up very well.

Value

At a penny under £1,500, these are not cheap wheels, but for a deep carbon wheelset they are in the bracket that I would term as good value. They sit alongside the likes of the Hunt Limitless CGR 40, and Reserve 44/40 G wheelsets. The Parcours FKT undercut them a bit at £1,249, and are deeper at 47mm and a fraction wider internally and externally, but also hookless and a touch heavier.

It’s a very competitive bracket for performance gravel wheels, and at this point they all have rather similar performance features, with just small differences separating them. If you want a quieter freehub, then the Scopes are not the wheels to go for, unless you get the brand’s special Silence Grease to reduce the known buzz of the Diamond Ratchet system. If you want to run wider tyres, maybe the Parcours are best with the 40mm external width.

If you want a pretty bombproof option with more heavily reinforced hub seals, no weight limit, and something that can tackle pretty much any form of terrain you throw at them, the Scope R4.G are certainly worth considering. Having used Scope R-line wheels across the last few winters, the hubs have held up exceptionally, and some truly heinous potholes have not led to any rim failures even when tyres have blown out spectacularly.

My best way to substantiate the value I see in these wheels, is that I have personally purchased sets of the road going version myself. Value is always subjective, but these are something I would, and indeed have, spent my own money on. I would suggest for most people that these wheels offer most of the performance of the likes of the Scope Artech 4.G, but for £2000 less.

Verdict

There's a much more expensive model in the range, but in my opinion, the Scope R4.G wheelset is the best gravel wheelset that Scope offers. Although the Artech model is lighter and potentially a little more aero, the cost is huge by comparison and there are some concerns about the delicateness of the hubs for off-road use.

The R4.G represent much better value in the carbon gravel wheelset market overall and based on previous experience with Scope R-line wheels the longevity should be impressive too.

The hub is intrusively loud though, and the rotors are a bit tough to fit and remove, but overall these are a highly impressive wheelset and a sensible investment for those who want a fast, lightweight, and resilient set of gravel wheels.

When it comes to road wheels, things are moving quickly right now. Carbon spokes are becoming commonplace, wheelset weights are decreasing dramatically, and a variety of rim widths are being offered, generally in the wider direction of travel.

The UCI maximum rim-depth ruling for road race use has also influenced things. Any rider in a UCI-sanctioned race can only use up to a 65mm deep rim, apparantly a measure to limit speed and improve safety.

DT Swiss launched its revamped ARC 1100 wheels last year, streamlining the third generation range of wheel depths to 55,65 and 85mm and introducing a new wheel shape and specific tyre pairing.

These wheels are the Swiss brand’s aero range toppers and are used by Uno-X in the WorldTour. In fact, wheels from the range have been ridden by the yellow jersey wearer in both the mens and womens's Tour de France this year - a cool stat.

They have also been designed and arrive with a specific tyre pairing; you can buy them pre-fitted with Continental tyres and tubes.

I’ve been testing the 65mm deep version for a few months now. I’ve ridden two road races on them as well as a load of training and general riding, and we’ve taken them to the Silverstone wind tunnel to see how they fared against some of the best road bike wheels right now.

DT Swiss has long carried a ‘quality’ label from cyclists and shops. If you are shopping for a new pair of ‘best’ or race wheels, my own comprehensive test riding, plus our own wind tunnel test results, should help you when it comes to choosing.

Design and aesthetics

The 1100's have a matte carbon fibre rim finish, with some classy silver decals. A silver 'DT Swiss' and 'ARC 1100' on each side, and a red section around the valve hole, perhaps to help make it easier to spot.

The wheels are built around that deep 65mm DT Swiss rim and with DT 180 DICUT hubs with ceramic bearings, which are the brand’s top models. There are 20 spokes in the front, and 24 at the rear with hidden spoke nipples. The spokes themselves are DT Swiss Aerolite II bladed steel ones, not carbon; you will notice.

The rims themselves use a V shape, widening from the spoke bed, and flaring out a little more at about the midpoint of the rim.

The wheels weigh 1559 grams as a pair on my scales, a respectable weight for a 65mm wheelset, but overall wheel weights are dropping so fast that it's starting to be viewed as a little heavier.

The brand now has a carbon-spoked, climbing-oriented wheel, the 38mm-deep ARC 1100 Spline CS model; head that way for carbon spokes.

The wheels have also been designed with a specific pair of tyres in mind and can be purchased pre-fitted with them, which is how my test set arrived. They came fitted with a 30mm Continental GP5000 S TR tyre on the rear, and the brand’s Aero 111 tyre at the front in a 29mm size, which the 22mm internal width has been optimised for. They also arrive with Continental TPU tubes fitted.

The rims are hooked, so there’s no need to check any tyre compatibility charts here. Though the tyres come with Continental tyres and TPU tubes, they do have DT Swiss tubeless tape fitted and tubeless valves included, so you won’t have to re-tape if you do go tubeless.

The hubs use the brand's Ratchet EXP system, and it’s very simple to swap freehub bodies or remove for cleaning. There’s a recording of the freehub sound below; it is on the louder side as freehub bodies go.

On the EXP ratchet, certain units are affected by a premature wear issue. Click the link to see how you can check your own.

The wheels have a 22mm inner rim width and an external width of just over 28mm. The rim itself also has a narrow 'V' profile. In the context of the overall market, will the wheels' overall weight, steel spokes and narrower rim measurements make them less appealing?

Internal and external rim width measurements are growing, and for riders looking to run larger volume tyres, a corresponding inner width may be the way to go. For all-out speed, is a narrower size better?

DT Swiss is in the narrower school of thought with these wheels. The brand argues that increasing inner rim width affects frontal area, a key consideration regarding aerodynamic performance.

According to DT Swiss wind tunnel testing, its V rim shape provides 'the lowest drag measured' as well as ensuring a 'small steering moment' to provide easy and predictable handling in crosswinds, etc. The brand also says the Aero 111 front tyre can help increase the sailing effect at certain Yaw angles, which can help us ride quicker for the same or less effort.

Performance

I've had a very good test period with the ARC 1100's. DT Swiss says this is the wheelset to choose for speed on flatter terrain, and this is where they do seem to excel. I've tested them with a Winspace M6 aero bike, and the Canyon Endurace SLX.

Sitting in the wheels in a road race or swapping off on my local chaingang at 50km/h+ feels very fast, and based on my feel I'd say up and over around 30km/h is where the wheels seem to really come into their own. It feels like they hold and maintain speed very well once moving, and the 65mm deep rims make pretty much any bike look mean; who doesn't love big deep rims?

Whilst they sit at 65mm in depth, I can’t say they are difficult to live with in any way. They perform well across the board. I've felt a couple of pulls in high winds, but generally crosswinds haven't been an issue, which aligns with the brand's claims on minimising steering moments.

No, they aren't as nimble feeling when climbing as a lighter, shallower wheel. But if you are looking at a 65mm wheelset, you are probably focusing on what it can bring to the table on the flat, and that's not what these wheels are for- not a day in the mountains.

That front 29mm Aero 111 tyre paired with the deep front rim can contribute to some harsher feelings at times, particularly compared to a bigger tyre and perhaps a wider rim.

Where I do notice a difference at times is in slow-speed acceleration compared to lighter wheels; the Roval Rapide CLX III wheels do spin up that little bit quicker, especially from very low speed.

On hillier, up-and-down terrain they also don't feel as nippy, and for a hard, hilly day there are better options, but again, these are for speed on the flat first and foremost.

That brings me onto weight in general; whilst these wheels sit at a perfectly acceptable weight for their specs, are they beginning to look a little heavy compared to what else is out there?

The Scope Artech 6.A wheel for the same depth rim comes in at 1307 grams, though they are in the next price bracket up. The 65mm Scribe Élan Ultra 6 wheels also weigh in at 1328 grams for less cash. (They also had similar aero performance in our test)

Lower overall weights provide improved acceleration paired with the aero benefits of a deep rim. There is, however, more to a quality set of wheels than the overall weight number.

The single issue I have had with the wheels related to water, and the habit it has of finding its way into the wheels. Something I have had to do twice is remove the tyre, inner tube and rim tape and empty water out of the rim cavity after riding in the rain. I’ve run these wheels with tubes, so it’s easy to notice the sloshing noise.

The wheels seem quite prone to taking on water, I believe due to the size of the hole at the rim for the hidden spoke nipples. Relatively short wet rides led to sloshing in the rim cavity. This adds weight and potentially unbalances the wheels, but can also lead to corrosion over time. On the hidden nipples, wheel truing will be more involved if it's needed, especially with a tubeless setup.

If you would use the wheels in the rain, and we all get caught in it at some point, check the wheels and drain them ideally each soaking.

You've read my thoughts on the wheels, but we also took them to the Silverstone wind tunnel for our latest CN Labs aero wheel test.

We tested a group of 14 wheelsets and asked the brands to send the fastest UCI-legal wheels they had, with plenty being around the 60-65mm deep range.

One bike was used for the test, without a rider. We tested at a 40km/h wind speed, with the bike's wheels at the same speed, across a range of Yaw angles and with 28 and 30mm tyres.

It's worth reading the entire test; there's so much information and data to look at, but here's the topline. Out of 32 wheelset tests across the two tyre sizes, the ARC 1100's placed eighth overall, and performed better with a 30mm tyre than a 28mm one.

The wheels tested within a watt of the overall winner, the HUNT 5AM Limitless Ti_UD Carbon Spoke, but are heavier and more expensive than that particular model.

In short, the wheels held their own against the competition we tested. The specifics will dictate whether they are right for you.

Value

RRP for these wheels is $3218 / €2499 / £2,599.98. (inc. tyres and tubes). For the UK market, that includes the Continental tubes and tyres I mentioned, which sweetens the deal somewhat; they aren't cheap tyres. That may well be the case for the US and EU too.

The wheels sit at the same price point as the Roval Rapide CLX III, the Parcours Chrono GT (62/65mm) and Reserve 57|64 Turbulent Aero. They are also just a touch more than the new Shimano Dura-Ace C60 wheels.

It's clear there's plenty to choose from at this price point, and I think the fact that good quality tyres are included boosts the value offering; you can pump the tyres up and you're ready to ride.

These are quality wheels that are in line with competitor prices, but I have a feeling the overall weight and lack of carbon spokes may make them less appealing in the premium road wheel top trumps stakes.

Verdict

The ARC 1100's 65s are undeniably fast on flatter terrain. Despite those deep rims, they aren't a handful and can be used for everything, which I have done with them. They are best suited to flat, fast riding, which is where they perform most strongly.

They are optimised for up to a 30mm tyre; if you do want a wider rim for 30mm+ tyre sizes, then they may not be quite what you are looking for with their narrower V-shaped rims.

If you are a speed merchant or are perhaps taking part in flatter road races or fast chaingangs, and want some deep wheels, they are a good choice and have performed very well for me.

For general riding and doing a bit of everything, the lower weight and shallower rims of the ARC 1100 55s would be my choice.

The original Roval Rapide CLX wheelset launched back in 2020, at the time joining the CLX 64 models; remember them? Last year, the brand launched the Rapide CLX III, the latest addition to the Rapide range.

The CLX III was rolled out in June last year, along with the Rapide CL III and Rapide CLX Sprint. The wheels shed weight with the introduction of carbon fibre Arris spokes and use a 51mm-deep front wheel with a 48mm-deep rear wheel, in what's occasionally referred to as a 'road mullet' setup.

These wheels are seeing regular action in the WorldTour by various Specialised-sponsored teams, and are generally a popular choice on Specialized models or as a standalone aftermarket choice; to be clear, Roval is a component arm of Specialized.

I’ve been riding them for months, tackling a road race and training on them. We also took them to Silverstone recently to see how they would fare against the best road bike wheels in our CN Labs aero wheel shootout.

Just another stop on the Roval / Specialized hype train, or do these wheels walk it like they talk it? I’ve put in the hard yards to find out.

Design and aesthetics

Carbon fibre spokes and overall wheelset weights seem to dominate conversations at present when it comes to the latest wheelsets. We will cover that, but for me the rim shapes and depths of the CLX III's need talking about first. There's more to a set of wheels than the spoke material and overall weight on the scales.

The CLX III's, like the II's they replaced, employ specific front and rear rim depths. The Rapide II's had a 51mm front and 60mm deep rear; the III's have a 51mm deep front rim and a 48mm rear.

The idea is centred around the Specialized design philosophy of optimising the leading edge, or to put it simply, the front of the bike where aerodynamic performance matters most; the rear wheel can then be made shallower to save weight and aid handling and acceleration. The brand says everything contributes toward aero performance, overall wheelset weight, and crosswind stability.

The rims have a wider, round external profile that is a lot rounder than some wheels with a more traditional 'V' shape, with a more 'normal' internal width.

Internal width for both wheels is 21mm, whilst the front external number is 35mm at the widest point, and 31.3mm at the rear. Even the bead hook widths are specific: 5.5mm at the front, 4.1mm at the rear. Roval calls this the 'Flatstop rim bead' and claims the wider beads help prevent flats if you smash the rim. I haven't tested this specifically; who deliberately rides down potholes? But I haven't punctured whilst testing.

The hub internals are by DT Swiss and use the 180 hub internals with a 36-tooth ratchet system. Spoke count is 18 up front and 24 in the rear, and surprise, these spokes don't come from Vonoa, who provide spokes for a lot of wheel brands right now, but Arris, a US-based firm making composite spokes.

The spokes use titanium end pieces and alloy nipples; four spares are included with the wheels, and they can be manually trued. So need to worry about dealer-only truing procedures.

When it comes to looks, the Rapide III's are a stylish wheelset without overdoing it. The hubs and rims are gloss black, with silver spoke nipples and end pieces at the hub. Two decal versions are available: gloss white (pictured) or 'satin carbon', which gives a stealthy, blacked-out look with black decals.

Performance

During my test period, I’ve used the CLX III’s with two pairs of tyres: the S-Works Turbo TLR tyre, and the newer Cotton TLR models, which pair the Specialized cotton performance into a tubeless-ready package; they are now what you see Remco Evenepoel and his teammates using. Thankfully I’ve encountered zero punctures or sealant sprays in my test period.

I installed both sets of tyres with a track pump, but the process wasn’t completely painless, with some seepage, mess and hesitancy for the tyres to seat and seal first time. The rim profiles of the CLX III’s seem to make things trickier. It certainly wasn’t a disaster, but a little more annoying than I would like.

I’ll get straight to the point: the CLX III’s feel pretty fantastic across the board. I’ve been impressed, and when I have switched back to them from other wheelsets, the point has been reinforced: they are excellent all-rounders.

They accelerate very well from low speeds, and feel fast and reactive when making changes in direction. I felt like I could dart around on them; they are exciting to use.

There’s also a comfort, a kind of softness (I mean this in a good way) from the overall ride quality that I can’t fully put my fingers on; perhaps it comes from the rim shapes, good quality tubeless tyres or just the overall build, but there is almost a luxurious ride feel. We also mentioned this comfort in our Rapide CLX II review.

Get them rolling, and those big white Roval logos start to flick round when you glance down, and they feel very quick, about as quick as anything I’ve used to date, especially with a top quality road tyre fitted.

The pros seem to favour the CLX Sprints for most racing, except perhaps the mountains, but I don’t think there’s a massive amount in it in the real world. I used the wheels for a road race with 32mm Cotton TLR tyres, and they felt fast and poised, cornering excellently and stiff feeling when I followed moves on one of the circuit's climbs. They are also a prime example of how you can have your cake and eat it now when it comes to wheel depth and overall wheelset weight; 1338 grams is nice and light.

There are online comments to the tune of, 'why would you fit a deeper front wheel? Handling will suffer in crosswinds'. That may have been true 10 years ago if you ran something like a narrow 60mm deep front wheel and a 40mm rear, but times have changed, and these wheels with their more modern wider rim shapes do very well in the wind. To an extent it depends on the rider, but poor handling as a result of the mismatched depths is a non-issue, so don't worry on that front.

We also have some wind tunnel data for the CLX III's from our recent CN Labs aero wheel test.

We tested 14 wheelsets around the 60mm depth range, or 'brand's fastest' options, on the same bike at 40 km/h across a range of yaws. We also used the same pair of 28 and 30mm tyres for testing.

In our testing, the CLX III finished in the bottom half of the test group and was faster with a 28mm tyre than they were with a 30mm. The CLX Sprint wheelset was marginally quicker.

There was less than a three-watt difference between a lot of the wheelsets in our test, and rolling resistance and bike and rider differences would account for more than this number in the real world. The CLX III's are a competitive wheelset, despite not making the podium in our test.

Value

$3,399.98 / £2,999.98 / €3,498 is our RRP for the CLX III's. There's plenty to choose from at this price point. The Vision Metron RS are a little more cash; there's the CLX Sprints, of course, and several Zipp wheelsets amongst others.

The wheels have performed brilliantly for me; I really like the ride quality, handling, and my own perception of their speed has been good.

There are wheelsets out there that are cheaper by $ 1000-odd, with similar overall weights and aero performance.

You'll still have to pedal regardless; I don't think you stand to lose out on too much with a cheaper wheelset and great quality tyres.

Verdict

I like the styling, and I really like how these wheels ride.

They tick the carbon spoke box, the overall weight is low, they handle and accelerate well, and they feel fast pretty much everywhere. Throw in that plush ride feel and there isn't too much not to like.

They are excellent all-rounders in my opinion, great for racing and all-round riding thanks to their low weight, but they do sit at the premium end of the market; there's a lot of choice when it comes to wheels, possibly more than there ever has been, but for me the Rapide III is another very good wheelset from Roval.

Light climbing wheels aren’t dead, but they’re certainly in a hospital bed, on a drip, and the immediate family has been told to come and visit. In the last decade, an ever-increasing focus on aerodynamics has seen the shallow wheel go from something approximating the default to a much more specialist option when considering the best road bike wheels, for those wanting to prioritise weight over all else.

Even lightweight bikes like the Scott Addict RC Ultimate are coming equipped with mid-depth wheels, as are all-rounders. It seemed a little against the run of play, then, when Zipp came out with a brand new 202 NSW wheelset earlier this year.

I’ve been using them in a range of really quite hilly environments, as is befitting. Full alpine ascents were scaled, as well as the savage and relentless Cornish coastal roads back at home, mostly aboard the new Cannondale SuperSix Evo, but also aboard the new Cannondale CAAD14 to try and invigorate what is quite a stolid machine as stock. They’re good wheels, but given their quite enormous price tag and some quite lacklustre constituent parts, I can’t really get on board with them with my consumer advice head on.

Design and aesthetics

If you’ve been riding a while, you probably think of shallow tubs when you see the ‘202’ number. While Hunt has produced lightweight tubular wheels in recent years, these are very much modern in terms of their tyre setup: tubeless, and as with Zipp's other options, hookless.

Hookless may not be the most popular thing in the world at the present moment. But the 23mm internal width should mean slightly enhanced compatibility with narrower (read: lighter) tyres than more progressive widths, but it does feel a touch backwards-looking in this day and age when 25mm internal is becoming something approaching the norm.

One thing I do like is that the maximum pressures for a range of widths are printed on the sidewall, so no annoying googling in the garage before the ride. There isn’t, however, a list of approved tyres as with so many other Zipp wheels as yet; I mounted up a set of 30mm Continental GP5000 S TRs (living to tell the tale) and set off into the mountains.

The wheelset comes in at 1,090g, though Zipp does state that this is the 90th percentile weight and that most sets will come in under this weight. On my scales, the pair came in at 1,050g, which is certainly light, but it’s not crazy light, as I’ll get into shortly. Part of this is down to the slightly odd decision to use metal, j-bend spokes which tip the scales at 3.3g each.

While it’s true that not every high-performance wheel uses carbon spokes, they’re definitely the norm on wheelsets that retail for just under £3.400/$4,200/€3,800 as these do. Each of the spokes is in the region of a gram heavier than a carbon counterpart, so for a grand total of 40 spokes (20 front, 20 rear), that’s 40g left on the table, and would have got my wheelset 10g under the kilo mark. Using carbon spokes also normally allows you to reduce the spoke count, which would further reduce the weight.

While we’re on the subject of spokes, Zipp is continuing to use J-bend instead of straight pull. This means the hub flange in general needs to be larger, which creates a slightly heavier hub, but also means a wider angle for the spokes to diverge, as well as a shorter distance for them to traverse, which could have improvements in stiffness.

Speaking to Bristol’s premier wheel guru, Rob Borek, it transpires many brands have switched to straight pull because it makes the hubs cheaper to produce in mass quantities as you need less material, but it also means you can lace them more easily with machines. I don’t personally think there’s any great issue with J-bend or with straight pull spokes. If the wheels are decent and fit your needs and budget, choosing to not go with them because the spokes aren’t straight is quite mad, and at least here you’ll have no worries about non-captive spokes ejecting from the hub under hard impacts.

Inside the hubs there are ceramic bearings as standard, along with a 6-pawl ratchet offering up 66 points of engagement, which for road cycling is plenty, given instant reactivity isn’t nearly so crucial as it is in the world of techy MTB. Mirroring the spokes, the use of pawls rather than a star ratchet feels a little out of keeping with the premium price of these, though it must be said I never had any issues with the engagement itself, and they are mercifully a lot quieter than the alternative, which is bliss when sending down long descents.

Aesthetics is a hard one to call on what is ultimately a pair of black circles, as most wheels are. I do quite like the graphics, which comprise a series of well-placed dash fades that make me think of 1980’s motifs in greyscale. The hubs, though, don't have that same premium aesthetic from a visual standpoint, but I think the most egregious thing is the silver nipples, which cheapen things significantly. There’s nothing different to black ones in terms of performance, really, but they just look out of place on a wheelset at this price.

Performance

I gave the Zipp 202s the best possible start in life with four days in the French Alps after the Dauphiné, including tackling the Col de Sarenne and Alpe d’Huez, plus several white-knuckle descents down the latter to really test their chops. They are, it must be said, an extremely pleasant set of wheels to ride, mounted up to a suitable machine; in my case the new Cannondale SuperSix Evo.

I didn’t have any issues mounting the tyres to the hookless rims. I am personally not overly enamoured with hookless rims for the road, but I do applaud Zipp for at least putting the maximum pressures on the sidewalls to stop me absent-mindedly causing an explosion in the office basement. Both a 28c Specialized Rapidair set and then a set of GP5000s went on with just a track pump (I managed to shred the former set instantly on some comically large shards of glass, it seems), and neither set lost more air than would be expected between rides.

The low weight is a big plus, and whether it was alpine climbs or the relentless, steep ramps on a trip down to Cornwall to raid the coastal roads, I was glad of the low mass. They certainly have that immediacy that is a function of both the weight and the stiffness. They never felt harsh, though. The 30mm rubber likely helps in this regard, but compared to some wheels, especially deeper options, they’re really quite mellow to ride over subpar tarmac, which the UK has in abundance for those of you unfamiliar with what can be charitably called our road network.

On descents is really where they came alive though. That lower rotating mass makes steering with precision a touch easier, and coupled with a reduced susceptibility to buffeting from the wind by virtue of just having a smaller side profile, they’re far less easily blown off course than many deeper options I’ve tried over the years. In hard cornering, whether full hairpins or fast open bends with more flow, they stood up extremely well, offering an extremely composed feel. I know in my head that the faster you go the more aerodynamics matters, and so on descents it’s perhaps even easier to argue the case for a slightly heavier but more aerodynamic wheelset, but I am a staunch believer in not living your riding life purely through the medium of a wattage chart; these feel brilliant on descents and you will have a lot of fun in a far greater range of conditions with them on versus something deep, in general terms.

They do, however, suffer against their deeper counterparts on the flat. The shallower depth will be less aero, but the lower mass also means at higher speeds you don’t have that flywheel feeling. They’re just a bit more of an effort to keep pushing on with on the flat, but you already expected that, didn’t you?

Ultimately, with mid-depth wheels reducing in weight and becoming the norm, the true shallow mountain wheel is now a very special tool, and with the price as it is for these wheels, it’s quite a hard sell if you don’t live somewhere especially mountainous.

Value

The Zipp 202 NSW wheels are really quite eye-wateringly expensive at £3.400/$4,200/€3,800, and I can’t help but feel like Zipp could have done more with these. They’re light, but not as light as some hyperlight options. To make life easier for you, I’ve graphed up a few key lightweight wheelsets, plotting both their quoted weight and their RRP, and these come out amongst the heaviest and the most expensive, which makes them quite a hard sell for a reentry into the lightweight specialised wheel market.

The spokes probably should be carbon at this price and with weight in mind, but make the nipples black to make them look more premium or make them internal to improve the aero package. Give us a new lighter hub just for these or something, maybe?

Verdict

If you live in Chamonix, Bern, Steamboat Springs, or Perranporth and you want a decent set of wheels for up hill and down dale, then these are good, and you will have a good time, especially if you prioritise handling, but you’re going to get more for your money elsewhere. And if your rides don’t look like a Toblerone every time you saddle up, then being realistic these are an awful lot of cash for a wheel that is not going to be ideally suited to your needs.

‘But I’m doing the Marmotte next year and need a wheelset for that!’ I hear you cry. If you’ve got the cash, then fill your boots, but if this is going to be your only wheelset, then I’d suggest going for something more general.

Welcome to the latest edition of Cyclingnews' Labs wind tunnel testing, and the third instalment of what has accidentally become a near-annual aero road wheels test.

If you're not familiar with these testing write-ups, I can only apologise for the hours you're about to spend nerding out, because below you'll find an extremely deep – approx 10,000 words worth – dive into the results from our latest test.

As ever, we were back at the world-renowned cycling-specific wind tunnel at the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub, but this time round, we took 16 pairs of the best road bike wheels on the market to see which is the unequivocal aero king.

Aside from the endless tyre swaps required (pray for my thumbs), wheels are a fun thing to test, because the results are largely applicable to most people. Unlike bikes, clothing and helmets, where the real-world difference between two products could vary from user to user based on rider position and body shape, wheels are more or less transferable from the wind tunnel to your bike.

And wheels are an exciting thing to upgrade on your bike. They can make your bike faster, lighter, better handling, nicer to ride, and perhaps most importantly, they make your bike look much cooler.

In recent years, we've seen wheel manufacturers step up their game in offering wheels that are both aero and lightweight. Just five years ago, a 60mm wheel under 1500g was rare, but now anything above 1500g is seen as heavy.

Given you're here, I trust you know the basics; that aero wheels exist at all, their go-faster intentions and that a lightweight wheel is likely better on steeper climbs. After all, this is our third round of wheel testing.

So instead of patronising you with the basics, I'll dive into the wheels we've chosen, the protocol we used to test them, and the all-important results.

But first, allow me a small plug. We have a new YouTube channel, Cyclingnews Tech, which is full of excellent video reviews of road and gravel bikes, most of which we've also tested in the wind tunnel. We will shortly be publishing a behind-the-scenes video from our day in the tunnel, so don't forget to subscribe so it lands in your feed as soon as it goes live.

The wheels

Unlike previous tests, where we've had no real parameters for what constitutes the optimal road wheel, and thus have just gone with aero all-rounders, this time the UCI gave us something to work with.

For the start of the 2026 season, a new rule was introduced stating that anything deeper than 65mm is too fast and thus should be deemed illegal. I won't get into the veracity of those 'too fast' claims, nor their motivations for the rule change, but we chose to set our limit at the same depth.

We asked brands to send the 'fastest UCI-legal wheelset' they had. This was a mix of nominally 'Western' brands, but with a quartet of Chinese brand wheels, courtesy of the kind folks at Panda Podium.

That led to the following list:

• DT Swiss ARC 1100 DICUT
• HUNT 5AM Limitless Ti_UD Carbon Spoke
• Parcours Chrono GT (62/65mm)
• Reserve 57|64 Turbulent Aero
• Roval Rapide CLX III
• Roval Rapide Sprint CLX
• Scope Artech 6.A
• Scribe CORE Ultra 6 (as well as the same wheelset, but with a new aero front hub)
• Scribe Élan Ultra 6 (with the OSL8 crinkled spokes)
• Syncros Capital SL Aero 60
• Vision Metron 60 RS
• CRW Works Ultimo 6060
• Farsports EVO C6
• Pertual ACME 45/62

And finally, as a lightweight what's-the-difference comparison, the incredibly light Arcaris 8848 wheelset, weighing just 904g on our scales.

For clarity, we tried to get hold of the new Enve wheels spotted at the Tour de France, but the brand was unable to get us a set in time. Apparently they'd all gone to some guy called Tadej who had an important race on or something.

We also hoped to test the new Black Inc Hyper 62. We had the wheels, but we failed to get hold of a Shimano freehub body for them. Somehow none of the other 15 wheelsets had an equivalent freehub design that could be swapped over. They're one of a few that use pawls instead of the more common star ratchet.

And we asked nicely for a pair of Shimano's new Dura-Ace wheels, but sadly no stock was available as our test took place before they launched.

Disclaimer

Before we get into the details of the test, a brief interlude to say this article features paid placement from Argon 18, with the loan of the Nitrogen Pro bike, and Continental with the loan of the GP5000 S TR tyres. I personally approved their involvement after concluding it wouldn't offer undue bias, nor perception thereof, to the outcome of the test.

As ever, we paid the standard commercial rate for the hire of the wind tunnel, and the sole purpose of this test was creating impartial data for Cyclingnews readers. Without your support, these tests would not happen, and so ensuring they remain impartial is key to their continued success.

Protocol & confidence

As with previous tests, we took the wheels to the cycling wind tunnel at Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub. The wind tunnel gave us the aero data, and separately we weighed each wheelset and took dozens of measurements alongside.

For the aero testing, each wheelset was mounted to the same bike: an Argon 18 Nitrogen Pro (in size M). Our stipulation here was to use a bike that had no affinity to any of the wheel brands in question, and Argon 18 was a good match, especially with the Nitrogen Pro's aerodynamic intentions.

A Specialized Tarmac, for example, would have been designed in conjunction with the Roval wheels and could, in turn, create an unfair advantage to those wheels. Likewise Cervélo with Reserve, and so on. Argon 18 does make a modified version of Scope's wheels that it claims work better with the Nitrogen Pro frame, but we insisted on testing the off-the-shelf Artech 6.A for fairness.

We tested in a bike-only configuration, rather than with a rider. This is because the error margin that a real rider adds to the equation is bigger than the differences we expected to find. By testing without a rider, we could be much more confident that the differences being found were due to the thing we're trying to test.

To quantify the error margin, we tested the Scope Artech 6.A at the start of the day, then immediately again afterwards, and then again at the end of the day, having taken the tyres off and putting them on again. By calculating the maximum difference between two points in those tests, our error margin equates to +/- 0.27w.

Each wheelset was tested at a wind speed of 40km/h, with wheels spinning at the same speed.

Every wheel was fitted with Continental's GP5000 S TR. Crucially, we tested each wheelset with two different tyre sizes (28mm and 30mm), and we always kept the front tyre on the front and the rear tyre on the rear.

We wanted to ensure that the same tyre (the exact tyre, not just the same model) was tested on every wheel, to remove any potential for different manufacturing tolerances from tyre to tyre affecting the results. We also wanted to avoid 10 minutes of downtime between each test as we swapped the tyre onto the next wheelset, so by adding in a 30mm test to the mix too, we could swap the 30mm tyres onto Wheelset B, while the 28s were being tested on Wheelset A. And then swap the 28s onto Wheelset C while the 30s were being tested on Wheelset B, and so on. This reduced downtime and gave us a second stream of data to boot.

Given the tyres were all box fresh, Will even brought some 120 grit along and sanded them smooth in the morning before we kicked off to remove the release ridge in the centre, and any rough surface was worn down to a consistent smoothness by the powered rollers during the initial zeroing process. We also ensured the same cassette (Shimano 105, 11-34) and rotors (Shimano) were used on every wheelset too.

Each wheel-tyre combo was tested at seven yaw angles: -15, -10, -5, 0, +5, +10 and +15 degrees. Each capture was performed in a sweep in the same direction (negative to positive) for consistency.

With more time, I'd perhaps go more granular here, and to a wider angle, to try and uncover the point at which wheels begin to sail. It's also possible to capture in a moving sweep and see this in real time, but it's much harder to extract an average to establish a best-to-worst ranking.

We also quantified price to help you understand the cost associated with the respective wattage saving. Coupled with our wind tunnel helmet test, our wind tunnel aero bikes test, our tyre tests and all of the upcoming Cyclingnews Labs tests we've got in planning, we want to help our readers decide where to spend their money first to get… well, faster!

And finally, if you'll permit me a moment to boast: In all, we captured in excess of 1,000 data points. This includes 14 CdA values per wheelset, as well as the following list of secondary information.

• Price
• Hooked (yes / no)
• Claimed weight
• Front wheel weight
• Rear wheel weight
• Total weight
• Spoke count front
• Spoke count rear
• Spoke material
• Surface texture
• Taped or blind rims
• Internal v external nipples
• Internal width front
• Internal width rear
• External width front
• External width rear
• Front tyre width (at three points, averaged)
• Rear tyre width (at three points, averaged)

Additional notes

Cyclingnews does not claim that this data is the final word on the aerodynamic performance of the wheels featured, but rather an additional stream of independent, unbiased testing and information for our readers.

The results are simply representative of our testing day and the protocol we used. We hope that being clear about our method and our protocol allows readers to appreciate the data while also understanding the bigger picture of the metrics that affect performance.

We understand that others may achieve different results with different protocols, and that some wheels in this test were designed around different tyre sizes, models, or a specific bike. Where we have information to this end, we will include it.

For simplicity, we will report raw CdA data as it comes out of the wind tunnel software; all data is subject to our error margin, and we will make this clear at important points throughout.

When averaging the CdA from the seven yaw angles, we have weighted according to the 2018 research paper by Cannondale's Nathan Barry. This calculates the likelihood of experiencing each yaw angle at given speeds in the real world and applies an appropriate weighting to each CdA measurement, and thus doing so appropriately provides a more accurate real-world interpretation of which wheelset will actually make you faster.

In layman's terms, as you travel faster, you're more likely to experience low yaw (wind head-on) than high yaw (crosswind), simply by virtue of the speed of your movement through the air. There are many different schools of thought on the correct way to weight each point, but we've used Barry's method for the past two years so will continue to use it for the foreseeable future.

Using these averages, we've then calculated to solve for power (watts) at the tested speeds. These calculations use a constant air density of 1.2kg/m³, and do not factor in additional losses such as drivetrain friction or rolling resistance.

Cyclingnews also understands that there is more to a wheelset's performance than aerodynamics. Weight, handling and stability are key for ride quality, while serviceability, tyre compatibility and retention, and how easy it is to get the tyres on and off are also important. This context should not be ignored when viewing the results below.

Results

For the results, I have calculated the power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag for each product at 40km/h. This figure is comically low compared to what you'll be used to seeing on your head unit, as there's no rider on the bike, but for comparison purposes, it's an accurate and comprehensible way to showcase the results.

I will then show the 'watts saved' vs the lightweight Arcaris 8848 shallow wheelset, as a means to help you understand what you stand to gain if you were to make the same swap.

That's your podium, and notably they are all with 28mm tyres. Satisfyingly, the next three most aero were the same three wheels again, but with the 30mm tyres, albeit Hunt in fourth, Scope in fifth, and Reserve in sixth.

I will go into more detail about each product individually below, but for now, allow me to let the graphs do the heavy lifting.

Below, I've got the raw CdA from each wheelset, presented at each yaw point. I've split out 28mm tyres and 30mm tyres, but as we'll learn later on, it's not always the case that narrower is faster. It's a higgledy mess of purple lines, but if you hover (click if on mobile) on the wheelset you want to see in the legend at the top, it'll highlight it and fade out the others.

For clarity, the line that sits at the top in the two graphs above, away from the others, is the shallow Arcaris 8848 wheelset. The greater the CdA, the more aerodynamic drag is created, essentially confirming what we already know: shallow wheels are slower. They come into their own on steep climbs, though, of course.

Overall rankings

Next up, let's look at the overall rankings.

Each wheelset x tyre size combo is listed, with the calculated power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag that they (and the bike they're mounted on) create. Lower drag means less power is required to travel the same speed, and thus is the more aerodynamic product.

Extrapolated to 50km/h

What about at faster speeds? Such as descending, or the spicy point of a bike race where you're bridging to a break?

The graph above shows a six watt gap between Hunt and the Pertual wheels (best and worst of the aero wheels on test) or 13 watts between the Hunt wheels and the shallow section lightweight wheels.

For clarity the data here is extrapolated from the results at 40km/h, but the comparisons in our 2024 wind tunnel wheel test, where we tested at three different speeds, showed a reasonable correlation between the results at 40 and 50km/h respectively.

Aero vs weight vs price

Now for some deeper analysis, and I'll start where I think most people will start: a comparison of aero vs weight, and then price, and then a combined chart with aero, weight and price in one place. Spoiler alert: there's not much correlation to be found.

Starting with the exact weights of each wheelset in order.

An outright win for the shallow Arcaris 8848, of course, but the Chinese duo of CRW and Pertual claw back some kudos with second and fourth, respectively. Hunt's third place here is the standout performance though, given the 5AM was also top of the aero charts above.

For the next few graphs, I've removed the shallow wheelset from the graphs as they are an obvious outlier that skews the results. We're primarily looking for trends in aero wheels here.

There's an ever-so-slight positive correlation between aero and weight, as well as between aero and price, but the spread of data is so broad in both cases that I don't think anyone can confidently assume that spending more will ensure they get a more aerodynamic product.

And things are no clearer when you factor in weight, too. The Hunt wheels are in the lower half of the price bracket, the second lightest in weight (excl. Arcaris), and most aero on test. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, the Visions are the 3rd most expensive, bottom half of the aero table, and bottom half of the weight table.

There's just no guarantee that spending more gets you a faster product.

Is narrower faster?

Smaller tyres have less of a frontal area, and given that CdA factors in 'Area' (the 'A' portion of CdA, or essentially an item's size), surely narrower tyres are faster... right?

Let's take a look.

Below, I'll start by looking at the aero data for each wheelset x tyre combo, coupling the 28mm and 30mm results together to allow an easy at-a-glance comparison.

For reference, the 'Cd' portion of CdA is the coefficient of drag, or how easily air passes over an item's surface.

Incredibly, nine of the 16 wheelsets (56%) actually returned a better aero performance with the wider (30mm) GP5000 S TR tyre than with the 28mm equivalent.

This is probably because most of them were designed to accommodate the wider tyre, and thus the airflow from tyre to rim was a smoother transition.

Given we know that wider tyres can be run at lower pressures, and thus offer benefits to rolling resistance over rough ground, it's reassuring to know that doesn't necessarily come at an aero loss too. We've already shown that 40mm tyres are faster for most people even despite an aero detriment, but I wonder where the limit is. If a brand can make a wheel work better with a 30mm than a 28mm, can they make 40mm faster than 30mm? What about 50mm or 60mm?

Do bear in mind that all the wheels besides the Syncros are hooked, and so the exact dimensions of the hooks will have some bearing on the measurable internal width with the callipers we had to hand.

Most brands publish the above information, but in the interest of being thorough, we wanted to measure the internal and external width of each rim too.

It's notable how some wheels (Syncros, Roval, Reserve, Hunt) have individual front- and rear- dimensions, whereas others are equal. Of course, the measurement might be a few tenths of a mm out, showing a discrepancy between front and back, but we've shared the data as we measured it.

And the above graph shows every tyre width as measured before it went into the tunnel. We measured each at three equidistant points around the tyre and took an average.

Using the two graphs above, and of course the aero results higher up, you can infer how tyres interact with the rim. If the front tyre is wider or narrower than the rim, and whether the '105% rule' shows itself.

Specifically, Silca's Rule of 105 says that a "rim must be at least 105% the width of the tire if you have any chance of re-capturing airflow from the tire and controlling it."

I've done that below, calculating the ratio between the external width of the front rim and the measured tyre width, and plotting that against the aero performance.

There's no obvious trend showing wheels over 105% are suddenly more aero than those below 105%, but it is perhaps notable that first, second and third place (Hunt, Reserve and Scope) are all very close to that 105% mark, at 107%, 107% and 103% respectively.

And to wrap up this section and conclude without doubt that narrower tyres aren't guaranteed to be more aerodynamic. The below graph shows the correlation (or lack thereof) between the front tyre's measured width and how the wheelset performed in the wind tunnel.

Carbon spokes vs steel

The big topic of discussion lately is carbon spokes vs steel spokes. A wind tunnel test can't answer any questions around safety, but we can at least dig into how they affect the aero and weight credentials of their respective wheelset, so that's what we'll do below.

Although there's a bit of crossover, there is a clear distinction between the weights of carbon-spoked wheels and steel.

There's no obvious correlation between carbon spokes and aero performance, but Hunt's logic is that since carbon is stiffer and stronger, fewer of them are needed, and that aids both their aerodynamics and their weight. The 5AM wheelset feature just 15 spokes up front and 18 at the rear.

That doesn't bear out in all cases, though. Pertual's Acme 45/62 have just 16 both front and rear, and they were one of the slowest on test.

The other question that crossed my mind when putting this feature together is whether internal (hidden) spokes are faster than external. It's fairly well accepted that hidden nipples are faster, all else being equal, but our data showed no correlation, presumably a result of a too-small sample size with too many different rim shapes and depths.

Individual results

To order this section, I'll work my way down the rankings from fastest to slowest, grouping together results from 28mm and 30mm as I go, rather than duplicating a load of the details.

HUNT 5AM Limitless Ti_UD Carbon Spoke

An impressive result for Hunt, whose wheels not only land at the top of the tree as well as the individual tables if we were to split 28mm and 30mm tyres into separate tests, but they're also some of the lightest on test.

We've all heard the saying "fast, light, cheap - pick two," but Hunt challenges that too. The 5AM, at £1999, are £1840 less than the most expensive pair here. Cheaper models do exist, especially if you look at the Chinese cohort, but by our data, Hunt nailed the brief here.

One of the standout things with the Hunt wheels is their minimal spoke count. Carbon spokes are stiffer and stronger, so Hunt says you don't need as many to make a wheel of equal ride quality and power transfer. Fewer things getting buffeted around by the wind is logically less draggy, and it's also lighter, so a win-win.

Reserve 57|64 Turbulent Aero

My big takeaway about the Reserve wheels is that the 57 | 64 are a darn sight easier to get tyres on to and off of than the 52 | 63 we tested last time. Their hooked rim is accompanied by a ridge that locks the tyre into place on the bead for safety, and oh boy were they tough to unseat last time, but the update has seemingly improved this.

Also, when we first tested wheels in the wind tunnel in 2023, Reserve's 65 | 50 were slowest on test. To have turned that around and been within the error margin of the win is a huge credit to the brand.

Scope Artech 6.A

Scope's Artech 6.A won our test last time around and are within the error margin of victory this time, which is similarly impressive to the Hunt result given their weight is 5th best at 1307g.

The 'thing' with Scope, however, is they're pretty darn pricey compared to the others here. At £3,498, they're the second most expensive on test. Those fishscales do look cool though.

I would like to test the standard Artech 6 at some point, since we've twice now tested the 6.A, which is technically an all-road wheel, albeit designed more around wider tyres.

Syncros Capital SL Aero 60

The runner-up in our last test, the Capital SL Aero 60 wheels are the best-of-the-rest here, in seventh place in the combined table (Hunt, Reserve and Scope claimed the podium with 28mm tyres and then also swept up fourth, fifth and sixth with 30mm tyres).

Interestingly, they were actually faster with the 30mm tyres than 28mm, which might seem unusual but is actually more common among the wheels we tested than the other way around.

Their biggest standout feature is the moulded spokes, which help keep their weight down and seemingly help their aero performance too. But with carbon spokes becoming a more common solution, it's now possible to get lighter wheels without the risk of writing off the whole wheel with a broken spoke.

They're also the most expensive on test, more than three times the price of others here.

DT Swiss ARC 1100 DICUT

My standout impression of the DT Swiss Arc 1100 is that they're incredibly narrow. They look narrow, with a sharper V-shaped leading edge to the rim, rather than the more U-shaped profile we've become accustomed to in recent years. They also measure up narrower than all others on test, at an external rim width of 28.29mm up front.

Roval Rapide Sprint CLX

Like the Hunt wheels up top, the Roval Rapide Sprint CLX are a 'mullet' wheel, with a deeper wheel at the front and a shallower wheel at the back. Since airflow is cleanest at the front of the bike, it makes sense to put the more aero product there, and then use a shallower wheel at the back, where aero differences are less significant, and enjoy the weight savings that it offers.

The biggest standout here is that despite having an average internal- and external width, both Roval wheels shaped the tyres narrower compared to everyone else. The 28mm tyre blew up here to 28.65mm (smaller than all others on test) while the 30mm measured at 30.43mm (only the Rapide CLX III was narrower). In both cases, that's almost 2mm narrower than the Reserve wheels, although I suppose in Specialized's defence, it is at least the most accurate reflection of what's written on the sidewall of the tyre.

Scribe Élan Ultra 6 (OSL8)

The Élan wheel from Northern Irish brand Scribe is famous for one thing... crinkled spokes. They are carbon, aero-bladed, and remind me of my sister's hair in the '90s.

Scribe says the Core Ultra 6 (below) is actually the more aero product, but our data puts them really close, with the Élan edging ahead (albeit within the error margin of the test). Given these are over 200g lighter, though, they're probably doing enough to justify their £500 higher price.

Scribe CORE Ultra 6

Alongside the Élan, the Core Ultra 6 is the cheaper, more 'basic' wheelset with steel, J-bend spokes (although the nipples are hidden inside the rim).

We were also sent an extra front wheel with a new hub that the Scribe team had developed for its pro athletes, designed to work well at lower yaw. In our test, the differences - if any - were well within the margin of the test and therefore indistinguishable.

In fact, with both sets of tyres, the CdA was exactly the same (measured to four significant figures) no matter if we used the aero hub or the standard hub.

Parcours Chrono GT (62/65mm)

Parcours' Chrono GT are perhaps undersold by sitting in the bottom half of our results here (and it must be said that they're still only 1.55w behind Hunt).

But one of the interesting claims made by the British brand is that due to the vibration-absorbent nature of the carbon being used, they are equivalent (in comfort terms) to another wheel running 10-15psi lower tyre pressure.

Vision Metron 60 RS CS Edition

The price here is inflated somewhat because we were sent the 'CS' edition, with silver hubs and CeramicSpeed bearings. A similar aero performance will likely come from the cheaper Metron RS 60 too.

Regardless, a middling performance from Vision, whose wheels have put in a strong showing in our two previous tests.

Roval Rapide CLX III

The Rapide CLX III is one of the shallower wheels in this test (ignoring the Arcaris), at 51mm up front. They are the wheels you get if you buy the new Tarmac SL9, and as I mentioned above with the Sprints, they shape tyres quite small in comparison to everything else here.

They still have the wider, shallower front profile with a deeper, narrower rear, and the 33.14mm wide front (as measured) is the second widest in the test.

Pertual ACME 45/62

Certainly the weirdest-looking wheels in the test, the Pertual ACME 45/62 wheels have a wavy profile not unlike Princeton or Zipp, where the depth undulates between 45mm at its shallowest and 62mm at its deepest.

Aerodynamically, they were slowest on test with the 28mm tyre, but they are impressively light at 1236g.

CRW Works Ultimo 6060

The CRW Ultimo 6060 is the second of our Chinese cohort, and despite an aero performance that's lacking, the fact that they're only 2 watts behind the Hunts, their 1156g weight, and their sub £1800 price is an impressive combination that flips the one-dimensional aero table on its head.

Farsports EVO C6

The Farsports Evo 6 are another that might be disappointed in the aero result, but in a similar vein to the CRW wheels above, when you consider they're around a quarter of the price of the most expensive on test, it's hard to be disappointed with a 2.89w deficit.

Arcaris 8848

And finally, our 'comparison' wheelset. The Arcaris 8848 with a claimed weight of 'from 884.8g' (hence the name). We had the mid-range Arcaris Pro, which is priced at $1,899 (or £1425 based on today's rates).

They weighed an impressive 907g and were 6.39w (28mm) and 6.61w (30mm) slower than the Hunt wheels.

Shimano has launched an updated range of Dura-Ace wheels today, as well as two brand new wheels.

In doing so, the Japanese giant has ended months of speculation around prototypes which have been used in WorldTour races.

The whole Dura-Ace wheel series has been updated, and two new wheels have been launched: the C99 front wheel, and a new rear disc.

The new series will carry the Shimano model code of WH-R9370, a number we saw on wheels fitted to Alpecin-Premier Tech's Canyon Aeroad bikes at the Tour de France earlier this month.

Although it probably won't have been on many riders' minds for a while, this almost certainly marks the end of the road for Dura-Ace tubular wheels too. The outgoing R9200 Dura-Ace models were available in tubular versions, but the new R9370 will be tubeless clincher only. Let's wait and see what Van der Poel uses come the cyclo-cross season.

A key question riders may ask is whether these wheels are hooked or hookless; there is no specific mention of this detail in the Shimano press release, but we assume the wheels are hooked as the price list mentions 'clincher, tubeless'.

We now have new Dura-Ace wheels, but this launch only adds fuel to the fire regarding when we will finally see a new Dura-Ace groupset released. Alongside the wheels, we also spotted new prototype Dura-Ace pedals at Paris-Roubaix this year, but remain in the dark regarding an official launch of a complete groupset.

We took the opportunity at the Tour de France grand depart to ask a Shimano big cheese the question, but unsurprisingly, received no new information.

The new R9370 wheels

Shimano says the new wheels are "engineered for modern racing in collaboration with WorldTour cyclists and pro triathletes." They are said to have been developed using Shimano’s ‘Science of Speed’ philosophy, though the brand hasn't gone into detail on what that is.

The new range still contains the familiar C36, C50 and C60 models, but now a super-deep C99 front wheel and rear disc wheel have also been added to the range. Until now, Shimano has not officially manufactured a disc wheel.

Weight has been trimmed in part by using carbon fibre spokes, and improvements made in aero efficiency and structural stiffness. They have decreased in weight by up to 220 grams per wheelset. The savings come from a new structure and better rim layups, with new carbon spokes.

• The C36 has dropped 180 grams, and now weighs 1170 grams.
• The C50 has dropped 159 grams and now weighs 1302 grams.
• The C60 has dropped 220 grams and now weighs 1389 grams.

The wheels are optimised for 28-30mm tyres, and the cup and cone bearing system Shimano has long favoured has also remained. Shimano has also built in the ability to adjust bearing preload whilst the wheels are installed in a bike.

The wheels have 23mm internal widths and front- and rear-specific rim profiles. External widths have been engineered to balance ‘aero and crosswind stability’.

There aren’t any major aero claims or data to look at, but Shimano has cited up to a 2.7-watt aero drag saving at 48 km/h with 30mm tyres, we assume across the board as no specific combination is listed.

The brand also cites CFD simulations and performance across ‘real world’ yaw conditions, not just ‘idealised wind tunnel angles’.

Since we started spotting prototype Shimano wheels, their carbon fibre spokes have been a talking point, and the new wheels will all feature new Shimano carbon spokes.

There will be two carbon fibre spoke variants depending on the wheelset: the ‘Super Aero’ spokes have a 5.2mm x 0.8mm profile, whilst the regular ‘Aero’ spokes have a 4mm x 1.1mm profile.

Shimano says the spoke type and count are tailored per model to create the intended ride characteristics depending on the application: fast aero wheel, climbing, etc.

The cup and cone bearings remain in place; Shimano says this "allows rotational torque to be optimised when installed on the bike."

Shimano has favoured cup and cone bearings historically on most of its wheels, and says they demonstrated "significantly lower friction than typical cartridge-bearing setups" in comparative testing.

Shimano cited a test involving wheels with cartridge and cup-and-cone bearings. Both had 500n of vertical force applied, which represented the bike and rider. A further 200Nm of thrust force and 5000N clamp force were applied via the thru axle. The test showed a 30% lower rotational torque for the new cup and cone bearings.

Bearings are said to be now replaceable, but this has long been the case; bearing cups are now also replaceable and waterproof sealing has been improved.

Shimano Dura-Ace C36

• The updated C36 wheels will have part number WH-R9370-C36-TL.
• Claimed weight is 1170 grams per pair.
• 23mm internal rim width, 29.4mm external rim width.
• Aero spokes, 18 front, 21 rear.
• Price: Front: £1,099.99 Rear: £1,199.00 / US pricing TBC.

Shimano Dura-Ace C50

• The C50 wheels will have part number WH-R9370-C50-TL.
• Claimed weight is 1302 grams per pair.
• 23mm internal rim width, 31mmm external front rim width and 32mm external rear width.
• Aero spokes, 21 spokes front and rear.
• Price: Front: £1,099.99 Rear: £1,199.00 / US pricing TBC.

Shimano Dura-Ace C60

• The C60 wheels will have part number WH-R9370-C60-TL.
• Claimed weight is 1389 grams per pair.
• 23mm internal rim width, 31.5mm external front rim width and 32.3mm external rear width.
• Aero spokes, 21 spokes front and 24 rear.
• Price: Front: £1,099.99 Rear: £1,199.00 / US pricing TBC.

New Shimano Dura-Ace C99

• This is the new C99 aero front wheel for TT and Triathlon, and has the part number WH-R9370-C99-TL-F.
• 99mm rim depth.
• Claimed weight is 792 grams.
• 23mm internal rim width, 35.2 mm external rim width.
• 16 Super Aero spokes.
• Price: Front: £1,199.99 / US pricing TBC.

New Shimano Dura-Ace Disc

• This is the new R9370 D disc wheel for TT and Triathlon, with part number WH-R9370-D-TL-R.
• Designed to pair with the C99 front wheel.
• Claimed weight is 987 grams.
• Full disc construction.
• Price: £2,299.99 / US pricing TBC.

The Vittoria Corsa Pro Speed is the fastest tyre offering from the Italian tyre stalwart. Used by the Visma-Lease a Bike teams for the fastest road stages and time trials, we’ve put it to the test as part of the Cycling News LABS rolling resistance testing where it came out the fastest option on test. Beating out the fabled Continental GP5000 S TR and TT along with other WorldTour race tyre competition.

However, part of why it rolls so fast is the thin casing, tread, and complete lack of puncture protection belt, meaning it is a far more fragile tyre than many other road going options. That does appear to be the only area of compromise though. Using the same Graphene and Silica tread combination as the rest of the Corsa Pro range, it is exceptionally grippy around corners, with good wet weather grip as well. Being so minimal in construction does also make it impressively lightweight, while the cotton casing leads to an exceptionally supple and smooth ride.

But are the compromises in longevity and resilience, alongside the relatively high price, worth the lowest rolling resistance we’ve seen in our testing? And is this the best road race tyre you can buy at the moment?

Design and specifications

As with all of Vittoria’s high performance road tyres for the last decade or so, the Corsa Pro Speed is constructed using the wonder material graphene. Vittoria has long claimed graphene use in the tyres improves longevity, rolling resistance, and cornering traction. Bold claims, and hard to qualify, given that many other brands have, in our testing both in the lab and the field, achieved similar or better rolling resistance and grip without graphene.

In this iteration of the tyres this has been combined with silica in what the brand calls its Race Formulation; faster than the combination used in the standard Corsa Pro tyres. The idea here is that this specific compound combination results in the optimal balance of grip, rolling resistance, wear, and weight. This ‘Speed’ version loses the central tread lines for a slick centre strip, with the tread lines only present on the outer of the tread.

The tread itself is also thinner than that found on the Vittoria Corsa Pro. This is to reduce rolling resistance to the lowest levels possible, but this does however come at the cost of durability, with Vittoria rating it ‘low’ in this regard. Designated a Time Trial tyre or smooth road surface Road Race tyre, longevity is not the focus, speed is.

That transfers to the casing, as a puncture protection belt has been excluded in favour of lower weight and rolling resistance. At least being tubeless, the hope is that any small cuts and gashes will get sealed. But running tubes does mean a higher risk of flats.

The casing itself remains the 320 TPI (threads per inch) cotton casing that the Corsa line has been famous for since its inception. Just two layers of it again reduce weight and rolling resistance, but this is all that lies between the inner and any puncturing objects. This cotton casing also means tan sidewalls are the only option available on these tyres.

Size wise, the 24 and 26mm options are good for those with more old-school setups. Indeed, my old rim brake bike won't accept larger than 25mm so I’m glad to see these options still kicking around. Sizes upwards of that are hookless compatible, while this WR (Wide Rim) version is designed for 25mm internal width wheels and comes in 29mm only. It aims to produce a more uniform round shape on rims as they have gotten progressively wider. Claimed weight is 255g, while the scales of truth found that to be very close at 257g.

Performance

There is one word that sums these tyres up; Fast. In our rolling resistance testing at the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub, the Vittoria Corsa Pro Speeds were the fastest tyre at all speeds, the only one that could beat the mighty Continental GP5000 TT. At 9 and 11m/s the Speeds were 1.3-1.4w faster.

Compared to the Corsa Pro though, they are an impressive 5-6.3w faster per tyre. That means double figure savings realistically for a pair, and that’s ahead of another race tyre. Compared to the Corsa Pro Control all-round tyre the difference jumps to 10.7-12.6w per tyre.

I have tested a lot of tyres, from rugged winter ones to fast race day specialists. The Vittoria Corsa Pro Speed are noticeably faster than anything else I have used. Taking them out on rides, there was a gliding sensation, which in part is helped by the very supple 320 TPI cotton casing. But the sensation of speed translates to actual increases. Seeing average speeds a good 1-2kph faster than usual across most routes in various conditions is not a scientific way of gauging performance, but these tyres are certainly fast, there is no doubting that.

That speed also translates to other aspects. These tyres are grippy when cornering. Not so much as the GP5000 S TR, which are yet to be beaten in my testing, but certainly up there with the Pirelli P Zero Race TLR RS. Banking over in corners was confident, as was zipping round high-speed bends and fast changes of direction. The light weight also means they accelerate quickly for sprints. However, the grip compared to the GP5000 S TR means that on steeper inclines when really kicking the watts, the rear wheel could be a little skittish for me, but the GP5000 S TR is the only tyre so far that has avoided that in my experience, and we’re talking 10% and above on the gradients.

There are some elements of these tyres that are frustrating though. Firstly, fitting them. These 29mm WR are very easy to fit to the No.6 52/58 test wheels I was using, and I’ve experienced the same with the standard Corsa WR on a set of Scope Artech A.4 wheels with the same internal width of 25mm. They can be fitted by hand with ease without any levers. However, I think this contributes to them being an absolute pain to get the bead sealed. Valves tightened, tape all secured, and sealant topped up well, yet they lost pressure multiple times from 80 PSI.

Riding them for a few hours seemed to eventually get most of this air leakage to stop, but I still required several stops with a mini electric pump to get them back up to 80 PSI as they had dropped to about 65 every hour of the first few hours riding.

Another component of these tyres that most will likely be concerned about is the longevity and the fragility of them. These are thin tyres, which is why they roll so fast. But that comes at the cost of durability. I can already see the rear tyre starting to square off a little bit after 400km. Fortunately I have not had any punctures, but I have avoided using these in wet weather and kept to well-kept roads and avoided shrapnel as best I can. Tubeless gives a bit of security that any small punctures will seal up quickly, but for those using tubes, there is more risk of getting flats from the likes of thorns.

I will say that at just the 200km mark into testing, quite often I would get back from a ride and see the small little damp patches on the exterior of the tyre where sealant has sealed a minuscule, little nick in the tyre. With no puncture belt, debris doesn’t get stuck in the tread or in the belt, instead it penetrates easily through the entire tread and casing. They have, so far, all been small enough that there is no discernible loss in pressure. But it does highlight the fragility of these tyres.

I also must comment about a weird scenario that happened. On one ride, a sudden jolting bump became present. I stopped to check what it was and the tyre tread had bubbled for a few inches and about 1cm rise. Given I couldn’t ride on that, I managed to pierce the bulge with a bit of roadside debris, expecting to be showered in sealant. Instead, the bubble deflated and no pressure was lost. After spinning the wheel, I couldn’t even find where this had occurred. I carried on, and the tyre was fine for the remaining 50km of the ride. I have reached out to Vittoria for comment on this, as it appears that the tread bubbled between the tread and the casing, rather than any of the air within the tyre causing this. The temperature on the day was around 20˚C so nothing exceptional. I’ve had, on older Vittorias once they wear down, the tread come loose from the casing at the sides, but this was back in 2019.

Vittoria’s response was that this is a known issue on a batch of the 29mm WR Corsa Pro Speeds, but that this problem has been remedied. It sent me some non-WR 30mm tyres to test as well, and there have been no such issues of the tread coming away from the casing as before.

Even excluding that potential issue, these are certainly a tyre of compromise, and it will be very individual as to if that is worth it. I would avoid these for long multi-day events, where resilience of components is key. But for road racing and time trials, the fact is that using anything other than these is losing performance. In fact, I’m almost tempted to ride these less in my testing to save them for road races I have coming up, so much is the advantage these have over other tyres.

Value

At £81 these are not cheap, but then no top-end time trial tyres are. They all sit mostly in this £70-90 region. But the Corsa Pro Speed are not tyres that will last very long, and given how fast these are, I’d like to use them in some races. But the longevity of them means using them more in testing means I’ll likely need to buy more for racing, and that comes at a higher cost.

It will be individual as to if that cost is worth it. A fast aero helmet might cost £300 and save a similar number of watts. But that is a one-time purchase, whereas tyres are consumables that you will likely need to replace a few times throughout the year for multiple events.

You can of course limit use to events only, but the fact is these are fun tyres to ride. They roll very smooth and fast and make riding bikes more fun. Going faster for less effort is always a nice feeling. But again, we come back to the cost.

The Vittoria Corsa Pro are similar in cost but have far greater longevity and the same supple feel, but a bit less of the speed sensation. However, for most people I would argue they offer better value overall. The Continental GP5000 S TR are incredibly fast, nearly as much as the Corsa Pro Speed, but last longer for a similar cost, are grippier too, but not as supple.

I would say though, for people searching for every possible watt saving to go as fast as possible, then these tyres are not bad value. They are not the most expensive, but they are the fastest. If you want speed, there is very little reason not to go for these. If you want greater puncture protection and longevity though, look elsewhere. What I will say is that a high quality, supple, and fast tyre will do more to performance and ride feel than any other bike upgrade. These tyres make even an endurance gravel frame with road wheels fitted feel fast and racy. On a road race bike, they make it feel like an absolute rocket and put a big smile on my face.

Verdict

The Vittoria Corsa Pro Speed tyre is what I would call a dedicated race day tyre, and specifically one for better road and weather conditions. Even taking it along some more rural lanes without the presence of rain, nicks and mini-punctures were common. Add in rain and debris to the equation and the fragility of these tyres is exposed. The saving grace is that tubeless means these nicks are sealed almost instantly with negligible impact on pressure.

The flip side of this minimalist construction is that these tyres roll like nothing else. The cotton casing, thin tread, and lack of puncture belt, all result in the most supple and fast rolling tyre I’ve ever used. Our lab testing supports this. If you want the fastest road setup on the market, not using these tyres is costing you watts. That is just a fact.

But as the old saying goes, to finish first, first you must finish. As fast as these tyres are, I can’t ignore the fragile construction of them. If I was on a team with near infinite spare tyres and a service car for punctures, then sure, these are a no-brainer. But in the real world, where I don’t want to spend £81 every <1000km, these are a bit too dear for me. Will I be saving these for dry races? Definitely. Will I use them for everyday rides? No. For the balance of speed and durability, I would opt for something else. However, these are very special tyres, and they make any bike feel like an upgraded version of itself.

Zipp's current road-ish-but-gravel-ish 303 S model has been replaced by an all-new road specific platform, the 404 S, leaving the 303 XPLR S to take care of the rough stuff. I

t comes with some pretty punchy aero claims, claiming to beat the likes of Roval and Scope, all while coming in at a price point that significantly undercuts the competition in many cases.

It's still sticking with hookless, but at this price there is now a greater likelihood of this trickling down into the mass market despite the still-frosty reception from consumers, and they represent a more attainable option for many riders who are looking to upgrade to a set of the best road bike wheels.

By the numbers

The new 404 S wheels, unlike the 303 S, don’t try and straddle tarmac and gravel duties; the demands of gravel have moved on apace in recent years and realistically there isn’t a good way to make a wheel that will do everything well without compromising in the width or weight.

With only tarmac in mind, the 404 S is deeper than the old 303 S (unsurprisingly, as a bigger number denotes deeper in Zipp-speak). These wheels are 50mm deep, with a 23mm hookless internal width. They’re laced with Sapim J-bend spokes to a 3-pawl Zipp 76/176 hubset that you can have in either Shimano or SRAM flavours, but not Campagnolo. They also feature a lifetime warranty.

At 1,585g they’re 60g heavier than the claimed weight of the 303 S, but for that slight extra in gram terms you get 'about two watts' back against the old 303 S wheelset. You also get wattage gains against some heavy hitters of the racing wheel world too, though it must be caveated that the 'Weighted Aero Drag' that Zipp provides in a handy graphical format doesn’t come with any details about the testing protocol or even the speed, and shows a wattage difference between the 303 S and 404 S at just under four watts by my reading, roughly double the 'around two watts' quoted in the release text.

Regardless, according to Zipp’s figures the 404 S is ≈0.4 watts faster than Roval’s Sprint CLX wheels, and ≈1.6 watts faster than Scope’s Artech 4.A wheels. There is also a claimed benefit of ≈2.2 watts versus Princeton Carbonworks’ Wake 6065 wheels, a set that in our own wind tunnel testing were only 0.43 watts faster than Zipp's presumably faster 404 Firecrest wheels at 40km/h.

The wheels are designed around the Goodyear Eagle F1 R Z29 Aero tyre, though it is unclear whether testing was conducted with this tyre installed. The rims are designed to operate best with 28-29mm tyres.

If you’re in a purchasing mood you’ll need to shell out $1,300 / €1,100 / £985. Adjusting for the not-insignificant inflation that’s occurred since the 303 S came out in 2020, these are around £300 cheaper, which is significant.

A couple of months ago, Factor unveiled a collaboration with every teenage boy's dream car brand, Bugatti.

If social media is anything to go by, the bright blue Factor One derivative was clearly a hit. Based around the brand's wide-forked aero bike, it featured an even more unusual fork design, high-end components throughout, and a set of never-before-seen wheels.

Those wheels, which showed a Black Inc logo and the number 62 - denoting their depth - were similar to the brand's existing 62 at first glance, but on closer inspection, housed some significant upgrades.

• Follow our Prime Day 2026 Live Blog for all the best deals on bike gear
• Head to our Prime Day Cycling Deals roundup for our editors' picks on the best deals.

They were laced with deep-bladed carbon spokes, an interesting carbon fibre hub flange, and a massive plain weave carbon fibre rim wall finish that put me in mind of an old-school Felt bike, or a chess board for that matter.

As it transpires, they are to be known as the Black Inc Hyper 62, and are today being made official as a new, even more premium level of Black Inc's deep-section aero wheels.

According to the brand, they are not just another deep-section wheel, but "a wheel with greater ownership over the elements that define performance."

That obviously sounds like marketing talk 101, but I include it because the underlying meaning behind it points to a detailed approach. Factor's - well, Black Inc's - engineers focused on the architecture of the spokes, the rim, the integrity of how the two were bonded together and how the spokes bond with the hub, the aerodynamics, the stiffness, and of course how they rode, to find improvements across the entire wheel.

The outcome is a 1298g wheelset at 62mm deep, with a 23mm internal diameter and a hooked bead.

Stiff, light, aero, pick three - just don't ask for cheap

Factor says the Hyper 62 wheels are designed to find a new sweetspot between low weight and deep rims, where ride character and lateral stiffness weren't compromised in the pursuit of weight and aero targets.

To achieve this, among other things, the brand developed its own proprietary carbon spokes rather than relying on existing third-party suppliers used by competitors. This allowed it to control the spokes' shape, layup, stiffness and strength, which all contribute to the ride quality offered by the wheels, and allowed the brand to design the wheels as a whole system, rather than designing the rims and hubs to work with predetermined spokes.

The spokes are then bonded into the hubs using another proprietary component in the form of the hub flange. This is deeper than you'll find on most wheels, adding strength to the system and, according to Factor, distributing the load more evenly, in turn allowing an equivalent performance with lower mass.

The third proprietary feature is found at the other end of the spokes, and the hidden threaded tips, which are integrated into the rim to aid aerodynamic performance.

And elsewhere, the rims themselves, while 62mm deep like the existing Black Inc 62 wheels, feature a TexTreme outer layer, which is what creates that checkerboard finish. This is more than a style choice, though. Factor says it offers extra stiffness to the rim wall, ensuring structural integrity under load with a lower overall mass.

All these novel approaches and proprietary solutions come at a cost, though, and so it will be little surprise that the retail price is almost as lofty as the promises that Black Inc is making about them.

Before taxes, you'll need to find €3,699 or $3,899 if you want to own a pair. With VAT added in, the wheels will fetch a cool €4,599. Though they do come with a limited lifetime warranty, which should offer at least a little bit of peace of mind.

The best MTB trail tyres provide confidence-inspiring grip and durability without having so much traction and weight that pedalling uphill becomes a real chore. Trail tyres sit between bombproof gravity tyres, and XC tyres that prioritise speed.

When choosing the best MTB trail tyres, it's important to first establish a priority. If you want to save weight, there are lighter-weight options with thinner casings and lower-profile knobs, but if you want grip, a softer compound and more aggressively shaped lugs are usually preferable. With most things, there are trade-offs, as a lightweight trail tyre won’t offer a lot of protection when slamming through rock gardens.

The type of rider you are also matters. If you’ve got a slim build or are highly skilled, you can ride lighter-weight tyres with a thinner casing. If you’re a bigger rider, or you ride an e-MTB, we’d recommend a heavier tyre with a thicker sidewall. Increased weight, be it from rider or bike, will heighten the risk of pinch flats, or tyre burps if you're running tubeless (which we'd definitely recommend).

Whatever kind of mountain bike trail rider you are, our team of expert testers have put an extensive number of tyres through their paces and come up with our pick of the best MTB trail tyres you can buy.

For further help on choosing the right tyres for you, jump to the bottom of the article for our advice section.

Best MTB trail tyres

Best MTB trail tyre overall

The Maxxis Minion DHF was a game-changer when it first appeared, and it has continued to dominate the trail and hardcore front tyre market ever since. With its massive side knobs, it has great directional control and cornering grip, but still rolls faster than you’d expect. It’s really a front-only tyre (designed to be paired with the DHF II), but some riders like to run one at both ends. There are several casing and rubber compound options, but the sweet spot for trail riding is the 3C MaxxTerra with the Exo+ casing.

Exo+ is light reinforcement with an extra layer of reinforced material that runs bead to bead. It has a mesh-type structure that, according to Maxxis, improves tread puncture protection by 27 percent, sidewall durability by 51 percent, and pinch-flat resistance by 28 percent.

The 3C compound uses a hard base layer, which creates a solid foundation and stability to the tyre, there’s a medium center section for quick rolling and enhanced wear and soft low-rebound rubber edge lugs for the ultimate cornering grip. This custom compound does ramp up the cost, but in our tests, we found the Minion DHF was predictable and tenacious and, with its open tread and impressive wet weather performance, we could easily keep it on our bike all year round.

Our reviewer Guy Kesteven enthused: "If I had to pick a single (cost-no-object) tyre for every situation, it would be this one… It tips in really smoothly and predictably. Once you’re into the lean, you can also load it up aggressively on pretty much every surface from slippery gravel to winter slop and wet woods."

For more info, see our full Maxxis Minion DHF review.

Best aggro MTB trail tyre

If you want something with a bit more bite and traction than the Minion DHF, the also excellent Assegai is a brilliant choice. The flip side of that extra front wheel confidence is that it's a little slower, though.

It was developed by downhill racer Greg Minnaar, so naturally, it’s available with a reinforced DoubleDown casing, but the lighter Exo+ version is a better option for trail riding. The 2.6in tyre gets an extra layer of lightweight reinforced nylon called Silkshield. It adds weight, but the nylon has a sort of lattice work construction that adds casing stability (you can run lower pressure without the tyre folding), thorn-type puncture protection and pinch-flat resistance, which is really handy if you’re riding in the desert or rocky terrain.

Like most of the Maxxis flagship tyres, the Assegai comes with either MaxxTerra (medium) or MaxxGrip (soft) triple rubber compounds. What you’re looking at here is a hard, stable rubber base, a quick-rolling centre section, and then a soft rubber on the edge for grip. MaxxGrip tyres don’t keep their sharp edge for long, but a good call is to run a MaxxGrip up front with the harder-wearing MaxxTerra on the rear.

For trail use, we found the Assegai is one of the best all-rounders. It can handle hardpack and loose conditions as well as wet rocks and roots. Its open tread spacing means it even works in deep mud. You can easily ride this tyre throughout the year.

Our reviewer Paul Burwell reported: "Grip levels are superb with the softer MaxxGrip tyre – it feels so surefooted and never does anything unexpected. It’s really consistent at all lean angles, even chopping and changing lines through tight singletrack. It’s a real confidence tyre that lets you push the envelope without having to pay the consequences."

Find out more in our Maxxis Assegai 3C MaxxGrip EXO+ review.

Best lightweight MTB trail tyre

Depending on your riding, the Kenda Hellkat Pro is available in three different casing structures – ATC, AEC, and AGC. The middle letter stands for trail, enduro, and gravity respectively and from a structural point of view, the gravity casing has an aramid strip under the tread with an Apex chafer to resist pinch flats. The light enduro tyre eliminates this chafer, and the trail tyre gets thinner plies, a more resilient 120tpi casing, and an all-in weight of 902g, making it one of the lightest trail tyres in this category.

The Hellkat Pro uses Kenda’s ‘dual tread’ construction, which means the centre tread uses a firmer rubber and the edge lugs are softer rubber. We measured the hardness at around 55a, which is only medium/soft, but the company claims the rubber also has low-rebound properties, so on the trails there’s plenty of grip. The HellKat Pro doesn’t do anything weird – we found it’s stable, confidence-inspiring and predictable.

The tread has a flat profile and relatively open motocross-style tread with some deep lugs, which creates excellent bite and mud-shedding but also has a good turn of speed on the flats. Overall, a great tyre for all conditions, even those nasty ones in the middle of winter.

Our reviewer Paul Burwell summed up: "It has good grip and braking traction, rolls surprisingly quickly and the moto-x style tread works in most conditions. A summer tyre you could easily run over the winter."

For more, head over to our full Kenda Hellkat Pro ATC review.

Best front MTB trail tyre for grip

When WTB first launched the Verdict, it offered a mud version with deeper side knobs, but the standard tyre worked so well in the gloop (and elsewhere) that the mud tyre was gradually phased out.

The High Grip (triple compound) WTB Verdict is an absolute monster. It hooks up where others falter, and in all conditions too. This light version gets the company’s SG2 puncture protection, a double-ply 60Tpi casing that does add weight but still ensures the tyre has a supple and responsive ride feel. The Verdict can be fitted to either wheel but excels as a front-only tyre offering incredible hold on hardpack, loam or slippery mud.

Like most WTB tyres, the Verdict is tubeless-ready, but we found it can be tricky to seat on certain rim brands. It's only offered in a single 2.5in width, so you may struggle with clearance on some frames and suspension forks, especially if you run a mudguard.

At 1,150g for the 29x2.5in sizes, it’s not a lightweight trail tyre, but the trade-off is an awesome amount of grip, excellent pinch-flat resistance, and an impressive wear rate. It’s criminal how underrated this tyre is. In fact, back to back this with the tougher WTB Judge on the rear and you’re going to be unstoppable.

Our tester Paul Burwell noted: "The Verdict TCS Light High Grip never feels nervous, no matter what surface you’re riding on and, with its impressive wet weather performance, it’s a tyre you can easily run year-round."

Check out our full WTB Verdict TCS Light High Grip review.

Best front MTB trail tyre for control

The Butcher T9 Grid Trail uses Specialized’s latest blend of Gripton rubber. It’s comparable in terms of durometer to the softest compounds from other tyre manufacturers, but Specialized claims it has a lower rebound, so has better damping ability. On the trail, it's noticeable that it doesn't get pinged around so much, so you don’t have to work as hard keeping the bike under control, especially riding across rock or dry roots.

To resist flats in those situations, the 60tpi triple-ply Grid Trail casing has an extra floating protective layer that runs the full width of the tyre tread. This doesn’t really add that much weight – the Butcher is one of the lightest trail tyres tested – but it does add some stability, allowing you to run slightly lower pressures without the tyre tucking or folding under load. The lug layout is similar to the Maxxis DHR II, but they’re slightly deeper profile, so offer a little bit more bite in loam and the wet. The Butcher T9 works really well riding at slower speeds where you have to pick your way down, but it also has a good turn of speed for those long dirt road sections.

In our tests, we found the damping effect was obvious straight away. There was none of the very pressure-sensitive jarrings on really rough or sudden impacts and it didn’t crumple or fold suddenly if we dropped pressures low.

Our tester Guy Kesteven also found that: "Ripping them round the concrete hard bucket berms and rutted flat corners of the recent tundra weather on our test trails didn’t reveal any vices, just vast amounts of snarling grip."

Best front MTB trail tyre for winter

If you're after a tyre that will give you grip in the worst of wet mud, then look no further than the Specialized Hillbilly. The tyre uses the same excellent Gripton T9 60TPI compound as the Specialized Butcher.

The centre/shoulder tread pattern is very different though, following the classic ‘square studs with plenty of space around them’ format of most good soft condition tyres. The Hillbilly runs alternating pairs of knobs close together for a slight paddle effect, and the knob tops are siped (slotted) to help them to reshape and spread under load.

Weight is average for a modern 2.4in ‘trail tyre’ at 1,074g, but at 59mm across, they’re actually closer to 2.3 than 2.4in wide. There’s also a Gravity Grid version, but that takes weight beyond 1,300g, which is a hefty pedalling punishment for bombproof survival.

We found the grip and control levels are well up for extreme riding. Our tester Guy Kesteven said, "While they don’t ‘lean outwards’ to grab carving/off-camber traction automatically, the side knobs are well-supported enough to deliver the traction as soon as you tip the bars into the turn. The tread cleans super quickly even in clay conditions and when they do start to slide, it’s a very predictable, normally saveable push, rather than a sudden snap-out and dump-you situation."

Prices for the Hillbilly and the rest of Specialized's tyre range are extremely competitive, which makes them an even better choice.

For more info, check out our full Specialized Hillbilly tyre review.

Best rear MTB trail tyre overall

The Maxxis Minion DHR II was initially launched as a rear-only tyre, but it turns out to be a balanced all-rounder with an impressive performance on most surfaces – weathered hardpack, deep loam, and even sticky mud. There are front tyres with more bite in this guide, but on the rear, we've found the DHR II is peerless. In our tests, it did everything with assured confidence and felt stable even on loose or slippery off-camber. Rolling speed is a notch below some (choose the Dissector if you need that extra MPH), but braking traction is up there with the very best, especially if you up the size to a 2.5 or 2.6in.

It also comes with three casing options (Exo, Exo+, DD) allowing you to tune the weight and protection levels of both wheels to the terrain. For example, if you’re at the bike park or sessioning downhill trails on a long-travel trail bike, fit an Exo+ or DD on the rear, Exo on the front – it’s what bike manufacturers do. It can be a little draggy in the bigger sizes and with the DD casing, but it’s a solid tyre that won’t let you down.

Our reviewer Paul Burwell, reported: "The wide, open, block tread is utterly reliable whatever the conditions. Literally from loose, kitty litter trail centre surfaces in summer to dirty Welsh woods in winter, you can go super heavy on the brakes and slam lean angles knowing that a DHR II will let you get away with more than almost any other tyre."

See our full Maxxis Minion DHR II review for more.

Best rear MTB trail tyre for speed

There are more aggressive trail tyres in this buyer's guide, and while it can be run up front, the Maxxis Dissector we've found it works best on the rear if you want to add a bit of urgency to your ride. It doesn’t have the deepest lugs, so braking traction can be lacking in wet and slippery conditions as the shallow spaces clog up, but the flatter profile and smaller 2.4in size mean on hardpack or dirt roads it accelerates quickly and carries that speed for ages. The oversized side knobs and 3C MaxxTerra compound also allowed the tyre to hold a tight line on loose off-camber trails and if it did break away when we'd been too heavy on the anchors, it did so in a predictable manner.

If you ride hard and end up slamming into roots or catching stumps, you will want a bit more protection on the rear end and the Dissector does come with the Exo+ reinforced casing. This adds some stability to the tyre but also boosts puncture protection, both snakebite and thorn type. It would be nice to see a DD or gravity option, but with the focus on speed, this is the perfect foil to the Assegai or Minion DHF up front.

Our reviewer Guy Kesteven summed up: "Dissector boosts rolling speed and response, but still feels damped and anchored with great ‘grip to slip’ bandwidth for control surfers."

For deeper analysis, see our full Maxxis Dissector tyre review.

Best rear MTB trail tyre for grip

If you like to take risks or find yourself on a few downhill trails, the WTB Judge with the tough dual-ply casing and high-grip Tritec rubber has got your back. As the name suggests, the Tritec is a triple compound rubber, which consists of a hard base, medium rubber in the centre, and soft edge knobs. The tyre is also heavily reinforced, but that’s not at the expense of too much weight – the Judge is similar to the WTB Verdict.

It's no slouch either – in our tests, when the trail opened up, it picked up speed and carried that speed really well for a tyre this chunky. Lean into a turn or cross rut some off-camber and the tyre is predictable, surefooted, and confidence-inspiring. There are some burly centre bars and good depth to the side knobs, so we found braking traction was very good, and when it did give way, it was predictable, so we didn't end up face down in the dirt.

We have struggled to fit some WTB tyres tubeless; they take a bit of work to get the beads to seat, but they hold air better than most. The Judge only comes in a 2.4in width, but it’s a great tyre for crossover trail/enduro/e-MTB use.

Our reviewer Jim Bland concluded: "The competitive price, premium grip properties and high levels of protection make it a strong contender if you’re a gravity rider on the hunt for a year-round rear tyre that grips like stink and won’t flinch when you give it hell."

Check out the full WTB Judge review for more.

How to choose the best MTB trail tyres

The best MTB trail tyre has to be the best of both worlds, borrowing features from the best XC tyres to make them quick-rolling but encompassing the aggressive knobs, grip, and thicker sidewall protection of an enduro or DH tyre.

Trail riders still need to cover the ground efficiently, so the tyre needs to accelerate quickly, carry speed through turns, and not be too fatiguing on long rides. On the other side of the coin, a trail tyre needs to have good grip and traction because modern trail riders are venturing into more technical terrain and riding at greater speed. There’s more risk involved, so you need a tyre that is more robust, has a beefier tread pattern, and a thicker casing. And, because trail riders load the tyre more aggressively in corners, the compound generally must be softer too.

For more on tyre tech, see our guide on everything you need to know to choose the best MTB tyres for your riding.

FAQs

How we test the best MTB trail tyres

All the tyres in our review list have been thoroughly put to the test on a wide range of trails, and in all weather conditions, from dusty bone-dry to wet winter mud.

We test them out over several months so we can get a proper feel for how they respond in varying conditions and review their durability. Among the qualities we assess are grip, stability, mud clogging, damping, rolling speed, weight, ease of setup, and durability.

The Judge is aimed to provide aggressive gravity-focused riders with the maximum grip, no matter what the trail hallmarks, and just looking at the Judge’s aggressive and oversized tread pattern made us eager to search for the grip limit on our most demanding test tracks. It's also an option worth considering for trail MTB riders looking for maximum grip and rear wheel security.

Design

The Judge is available in WTB’s ‘Tough’ and 'Light' sidewall casing options. Essentially, it is a dual ply casing made up of two 60tpi layers. Our Tough test tyre topped the scales at a hefty 1381g (but lighter than WTB’s claimed 1427g).

The tread pattern is made up of seriously chunky side knobs, which are claimed to enthusiastically cut the dirt in every direction across a wide range of riding conditions. These are paired with centerline knob companions that alternate between long and wide with the aim of balancing rolling speed and braking traction. Interestingly, when inflated, the overall tyre shape looks more squared off than most, which in practice, with its rear-specific focus, makes total sense for the rear wheels' less profound lean angle during cornering when compared to the front. Measuring at 2.37’’ when inflated to 20psi on our 30mm rim brings the Judge acceptably in line with WTB’s claimed 2.4’’ width.

While the tyre was originally available in two compound options, ‘High Grip’ and ‘Fast Rolling’, only High Grip seems to be available now. The Judge utilises WTB’s ‘TriTec’ rubber technology. ‘TriTec’ is a blend of three rubber compounds made up of a firmer rubber across the base of the tyre which is said to stabilise the knobs and prevent any squirming under high load forces, on top of this is medium stiffness centre knobs which offer the desired rolling speed, traction and longevity balance, while slow rebounding and softer still side knobs are said to deliver reliable grip for g-force cornering.

Like most other WTB tyres, we also see TCS tubeless technology featured here. In practice, these tyres seem to take more effort to seat than most other brands of late. It’s the first tyre in while we haven’t managed to successfully seat with only a track pump. Other than the initial ‘pop on’ struggle, they always seem to remain reliable and hold pressure well throughout testing, though.

Performance

Let’s cut to the chase, if you’re looking for a tyre to maximise your all-day rolling efficiency, then this probably isn’t the best option for you. Within the first few pedal strokes, you’re hit with rolling speeds comparable to the most sticky compound, DH-rated tyre options. There’s no avoiding that the increased weight from a chunky construction and soft rubber blend means the Judge requires more effort to reach the trailhead; however, should you encounter any technical sections or steep pitches during the climb, it does a stellar job of cutting the dirt, finding purchase and propelling you forward.

Get it up to speed on the way down and the slow-rolling nature feels less apparent. The overall feel of the dual-ply casing is excellent, and when compared to older WTB tyres, the feel is more alive and less wooden as it conforms over trail features. During aggressive, hard-charging riding, the levels of protection on offer from WTB’s casing feels really reassuring and not once during testing did we experience a full tyre bottom out, even when experimenting with lower-than-normal tyre pressures. This makes the Judge a great option for hard-charging riders or racers who rank protection highly and don’t want the added complications of tyre inserts.

The meaningful side knobs provide maximum hold when leaned over, even in damp and loose loamy terrain, and the transition from upright to the cranked over ragged edge hits the progressive sweet spot, showing no signs of unclear traction. Braking remains effective and predictable with even North Yorkshire’s claggy clay clearing the tread swiftly. Essentially, the Judge never does anything weird and remains predictably reliable on every trail surface we placed in its path.

As a result, with all of the traits and features combined, we think the Judge in this configuration should really pair well with the best electric mountain bikes, whose riders like to ride hard. The ability to bite into soft trail surfaces means climbing characteristics are exceptional, it’s hyper grippy on the way down to and the high levels of protection and willingness to slow down will suit the heavier bike. So far, the Judge is showing no obvious signs of wear, so we expect it to last well too.

Verdict

The Judge may not release the right endorphins on the climbs, but the premium grip properties and high levels of protection make it a strong contender if you’re a gravity rider on the hunt for a year-round rear tyre that grips like stink and won’t flinch when you give it hell.

Apparently born from the dry and loose tyre desires of World Cup DH star Troy Brosnan, the Dissector plates up different elements from the Maxxis buffet to create a great tyre for those riders who feel a bit too gripped on the brand's Minion DHR II and Assegai. Originally designed as a rear, the Dissector works well on the front too, particularly in drier conditions and is one of the best MTB trail tyres around.

Construction

The WT (Wide Trail) carcass is proven Maxxis and while we tested the lightest single-ply Exo version, there’s a DH casing for Troy and friends, plus DD and Exo+ versions. Our 2.4in Exo test tyre rolled onto WTB and Hunt rims easily by hand, but still popped up for a secure fit with a track pump, and sizing is spot on at a fraction under 2.4in from knob to knob.

In terms of Maxxis comparison, the ramped, alternating centre tread sits somewhere between Rekon and DHR II with a significant gap to the Rekon/Aggressor shoulder strip. There’s a choice of a dual compound or triple compound MaxTerra on the Exo and Exo+ tyres, while the DD and 2 Ply DH are MaxxGrip.

Performance

Maxxis is the generally accepted performance benchmark for aggro and trail tyres and the Dissector sits very neatly into that crossover point. It’s lighter than Minion DHF and DHR in a similar size and the ramped tread rolls faster too - especially compared to the DHR so it adds immediate pep to pedalling.

While there is a momentary breath catch as you cross the centre to shoulder gap that original High Roller and High Roller II users will definitely recognise. Make the leap of traction faith though and cornering grip is decent with a controllably lazy fade into drift rather than a dramatic snap out. That soon makes chasing the sideways slip through every corner an addictive pastime, particularly as you’ll get to those corners a bit sooner and faster than you were expecting. That means it’s a great match to well planted, low slung bikes and riders who like to play with the edge of control at every opportunity. That’s on the 2.4 too, so while we’ve not tried them yet, our experience on other 2.6in Maxxis suggests they’ll be properly sideways happy.

Braking is very stable if you get carried away though and while it can’t match the ‘who put a coil fork/shock on my bike?’ damping feel of Hutchinson’s class-leading carcass, it definitely feels more planted and secure than Rekon, Forekaster or Aggressor. Obviously Exo+, DD and DH versions will add increasing amounts of surefooted, slam proofed feel as you move towards and then well past the kilo.

Verdict

If you’re riding around on Maxxis DHF, Assegai or DHR II tyres and wishing you were going a bit quicker, or want a bit more confidence than your Rekon or Forekaster tyres are providing, then here’s your answer. The Dissector boosts rolling speed and response, but still feels damped and anchored with great ‘grip to slip’ bandwidth for control surfers.

Awesome aggressive grip, zero sketchy habits and a ton of well-judged carcass and compound options mean you’ll see a Maxxis Minion DHR II fitted to more new and well-used mountain bikes than any other MTB rear tyre. It works well up front in a lot of situations too. So what are the details that make it so good and where does it work best? Slightly binary behaviour and slower roll mean it might not be the Maxxis for everyone though, and price is always an investment, but it is definitely one of the best MTB trail tyres available.

Design

The original DHR was a great tyre, but the release of the Mk II version a few years back was when back wheel Cinders really crashed the rubber ball. The big centre blocks got a little bit of High Roller (another leading Maxxis tyre model) style ramping to make it look faster, which combined with the lean-loving L-shape and split square side blocks from its big brother, the Minion DHF. Big gaps and serious sipes (central slots to allow the top of the tread to deform to the trail loads) give it a caricature ‘Swamper’ look and make sure it clears filthy conditions as well as that suggests too.

Specifications

As well as a retread, Maxxis bulked up the carcass options of all their trail/enduro tyres at the same time. A light dual-ply DD casing and a ‘silkworm’ wrapped Exo+ casing filled the middle ground between the existing ultra-heavy DH and lightweight Exo. This created a perfect rear and front combo for riders who were hitting stuff harder and harder as bikes got longer, slacker and faster and possibly had ten kilos worth of battery and motor on board too.

Sizing options expanded to cover everything between XC and Plus, and 30mm and wider rims gained a specific 2.4in WT ‘Wide Trail’ version to restore the correct profile and pliability characteristics on a broad base.

Performance

Tyres start becoming favourites by being easy to fit, and while there are always some rims that seem to be a pain, Maxxis blow up without much stress or swearing on most rims we test. The slightly stiffer Exo+ and DD options also seem to inflate easier, although they can be more of a fight to fit at first. So overall, not the dreamiest to fit, but certainly not the worst either. Unlike a lot of tyres, they blow up exactly the size they should too.

Once on, the stress is pretty much gone. Presuming you got the right carcass weight for your riding (rarely kill a tyre = Exo, regular sidewall splitter = Exo+, regular rim dinger = DD, frame-breaking, shock-blowing animal = DH), your Minion will be a component you completely forget about. It’ll handle low pressures without burping, give a great balance of traction boosting compliance, but still stay supportive when you’re really throttling it through turns. It’s damped enough to add calm and control but doesn’t feel dead and even the heavily reinforced versions aren’t so stiff they’ll hammer your feet or blow bottles out of cages. Compared to similarly tough tyres at each level, it’s an acceptable weight too.

The wide, open, block tread is similarly utterly reliable whatever the conditions. Literally from loose, kitty litter trail centre surfaces in summer to dirty Welsh woods in winter, you can go super heavy on the brakes and slam lean angles knowing that a DHR II will let you get away with more than almost any other tyre. While the softer triple compounds start to round off pretty quickly, the well-supported knobs never rip off and while we have seen some warped carcasses, that’s a badge of hardcore honour, not an indictment on the casing.

The only downside is that even with the obvious ramping, those big blocks and gaps mean it’s almost a gear slower (sorry, without a Scandinavian rolling drum lab to play with that’s the best anecdotal metric I can give you) under power than a DHF and a gear and a bit slower than a Maxxis Dissector/Aggressor. A DHF is going to slide or slip more easily if you get heavy on the brakes or torque, though, and all-round Dissector/Aggressor grip isn’t even on the same page. The amount of sensibly progressive carcass options and sizing gives Maxxis an edge over the ranges from Schwalbe and WTB and makes Hutchinson, Michelin, Specialized, Bontrager, Vee etc. look very restricted in terms of choice.

Verdict

There are very few truly fit-and-forget tyres that excel in almost every situation. The Minion DHR might not flatter fitness, but it’s certainly a tyre I know I can always trust to have my back whatever the trail is doing. Crucially, the whole range means there'll be one I could recommend to any aggressive rider without worrying they’ll be nothing but ‘totally stoked’. Shopping around should get you a better deal on price too, and even the more basic dual compound options are better than most competition.

Specialized’s Butcher Grid Trail 2Bliss Ready T9 already ranks as one of the best mountain bike trail tyres available – especially if you’re in the UK and after a high grip bargain. The Hillbilly steps things up with even more traction for sloppier, softer conditions without losing hard surface control or dragging dramatically either.

Design and construction

While the name is similar to the previous generation Specialized tyres, the Grid Trail 2Bliss Ready carcass comes from a different manufacturer. It’s the same 60tpi layup used on the most recent Butcher tyre, though, and the same soft, slow rebound ‘Gripton’ T9 compound is used here on the Hillbilly as well.

The centre/shoulder tread pattern is very different, following the classic ‘square studs with plenty of space around them’ format of most good soft conditions tyres. Specialized run alternating pairs of knobs close for a slight paddle effect, and the knob tops are siped (slotted) to allow them to reshape and spread under load.

Shoulder knobs are slightly angled in for a directional emphasis with alternate lugs getting long supporting buttresses right down the sidewall. U-shaped sipes create a ‘block in block’ effect on every other knob too, but there’s no outward splay or projection over the carcass edge.

Weight is average for a modern 2.4in ‘trail tyre’ at 1074g but at 59mm across, they’re actually closer to 2.3 than 2.4in wide. There’s also a Gravity Grid version, but that takes weight beyond 1300g in pursuit of extreme punishment survival.

Performance

If you don’t like changing tubeless tyres because of the faff and mess involved, you’ll be relieved to hear Specialized 2Bliss setup is about as easy as it gets. Not so tight onto the rim that it’s a fight, but not so loose you’re worried about it ripping off in the first turn or peeling off if you get a blowout. It runs happily at teen pressures if you really want to suck the wheel onto the ground too, but obviously bear in mind that this is a trail tyre. If you’ve got a history of rubber-ruining rim abuse, you can pick the Gravity version.

Impacts aside, the grip and control levels are well up for extreme riding. The more open, lugged tread locks into dirty, wet, and loose conditions significantly better than a ramped or flatter/tighter tread. While they don’t ‘lean outwards’ to grab carving/off-camber traction automatically the side knobs are well-supported enough to deliver the traction as soon as you tip the bars into the turn. The tread cleans super quickly even in clay conditions and when they do start to slide, it’s a very predictable, normally saveable push, rather than a sudden snap-out and dump-you situation.

The T9 rubber and underlying carcass give excellent impact damping and micro-traction too. That reduces nerves when transitioning from slop to roots/rocks or the treacherous mess of ‘who knows what’s waiting under the leaves/around the next corner' that typifies a lot of UK and northern hemisphere riding for half the year. While there’s an audible and haptic rumble on the road and you’ll lose some ground in a roll-down test, they’re certainly not so slow you’ll go home early or stop one run short on a session. If anything their ability to keep you upright where most trail tires won’t mean you’re likely to get more riding in and you’ll certainly be going faster on descents and tech sections too.

The fact they make adequate forks feel great and great forks feel amazing adds to their already excellent value in the UK at least and while they’ll shred fast if run on summer rocks, in their natural habitat wear is proving totally reasonable. We’ve had no ripped knob or unraveling/twisting carcass weirdness from our long-term Butcher tires either.

Verdict

Specialized’s Hillbilly T9 tires are a great choice if you want significant extra grip in the slop and soft conditions. The Grid Trail versions are really well-damped on harder surfaces and not a total pain to pedal either. In the UK at least they’re an absolute bargain as well.

The WTB Verdict TCS Light High Grip does what it says on the tin. Any Wilderness Trail Bikes (WTB) mountain bike tyre tagged with a TCS label is tubeless-ready. High Grip means it’s built using the company’s super-soft, Tritec triple-compound, and the ‘Light’ casing is double-ply 60Tpi with SG2 puncture protection.

The WTB Verdict can be fitted to either wheel but excels as a front-only tyre offering and is incredible hold on hardpack, loam or slippery mud. The Verdict TCS Light High Grip is packing a little extra weight compared to other light tyres in our best mountain bike trail tyres test, and it can be a little punishing, but this is a real confidence tyre, one you can push hard without it biting back.

Design and specifications

For solid clearance and predictable traction, the Verdict TCS Light High Grip employs a 2x2 centre tread. It essentially repeats the same knob shape, which is siped to increase the footprint but also chamfered on the leading edge to reduce rolling resistance. The knob depth is similar to a Maxxis Assegai, but the tread is more channelled, so the tyre offers excellent clearance and mud shedding allowing those lugs to bite even in poor conditions.

The knob profile is also replicated on the shoulder, but these are some of the deepest knobs I’ve seen and, while that would normally create some unwanted flex during hard cornering efforts, this tyre just has incredible hold. You can get up on that edge in a banked turn without the tyre doing anything weird or vague.

Like in boxing, WTB splits its range into weight categories, but don’t go thinking this Light casing isn’t going to pack a punch. The Verdict TCS Light High Grip features a 60Tpi single play casing but with SG2 protection. This is an additional nylon layer to increase pinch flat protection without adding excess weight. WTB builds a bit of texture onto the sidewall for added abrasion resistance, and that extra meat means you can run slightly lower pressure to enhance traction, while still retaining adequate sidewall stiffness and cornering stability.

The Verdict TCS Light High Grip is only offered in a single 2.5in width, but those deep edge lugs do come up to size, so you may struggle slightly with winter clearance on some suspension forks, especially if you run a mudguard.

Although the Verdict is TCS tubeless-ready, I found it can be tricky to get the bead to seat on some rim brands. I got it to go eventually, but it would often need a bit of bead lubrication and a tubeless booster pump to get it to snap into place, plus a little bit of air topping up down the line.

Performance

One of the reasons this is such a good cornering tyre is the High Grip rubber compound. It’s actually WTB’s Tritec triple compound, utilising a firm base with a medium/soft skin down the centre and a super soft edge. I measured the latter at around 50a using a durometer, but it’s also incredibly low rebound. Some soft tyres can still feel loose and unpredictable on hard surfaces, but the Verdict TCS Light High Grip feels incredibly sure-footed. It doesn’t skate around under hard loading or when you’re snapping the front of the bike into a loose turn – you don’t have to fight for the grip, it just feels solid.

It's not the quickest rolling tyre in our test, which is one of the reasons we recommend this for front-only use, but it’s a great choice for harder riding, gravity use and e-bike fitment. I’ve smashed this tyre through some pretty rocky terrain, and it’s emerged unscathed – that extra rubber on the sidewall really does a good job at protecting the tyre from abrasion. The ride feel is impressive too, helped by that low rebound rubber compound. The Verdict TCS Light High Grip never feels nervous, no matter what surface you’re riding on and, with its impressive wet weather performance, it’s a tyre you can easily run year-round.

Verdict

At 1150g for the 29x2.5in size, the WTB Verdict is not a lightweight trail tyre, but the trade-off is an illicit amount of traction, excellent pinch-flat resistance and an impressive wear rate. Hook this up with a WTB Judge Tough High Grip on the rear and you’re going to be unstoppable.

The HellKat Pro ATC is Kenda’s top-tier trail tyre, but there are two bigger siblings for gravity and enduro use. All three tyres get the same moto-x style tread, which was developed for the DH World Cup stage by the Kenda-sponsored UR Team race team, but the protection levels have been reduced and the weight cut for trail riding. This ATC version features a thinner, more resilient and lighter 120tpi casing and a dual-layer rubber compound. It comes fully tubeless-ready and is available in 27.5 and 29er sizes and two widths.

Does this make for one of the best MTB trail tyres around? Well, keep reading to find out.

Design

The three different casing structures Kenda offers are ATC, AEC and AGC. The middle letter represents the application – hence trail, enduro and gravity respectively. From a purely structural point of view, the gravity casing has an Aramid strip under the tread with an apex chafer to resist pinch flats. The light enduro tyre eliminates this chafer and the trail tyre gets some thinner nylon plies, a more resilient 120tpi casing and a weight of 902g, making it one of the lightest trail tyres in the category.

If the tread was an eight-a-side football [aka soccer] formation, it’d be 3-2-2 with a tightly spaced row of wingers. All the knobs are either siped (they have little slits in the surface) or have shallow depressions, which help them deform and spread out, enhancing traction. To add further braking stability, two of the centre lugs are co-joined and they’re also slightly lower profile than the edge lugs, so don’t flex as hard.

The tread has some pretty open channels, so clearance in mud is impressive, but there are a couple of sections where the casing is a little unprotected, so you may need to ride light in the rock gardens. I’ve not had any issues with punctures (thorn or pinch flat), but I have been running this tyre tubeless. Configuring the tyre was straightforward – the bead seated first time and the tyre didn’t require any additional air during the first outing.

Performance

Kenda employs a dual-layer rubber compound in the HellKat Pro ATC. Unlike the multi-layered compound used in the Maxxis Minion DHF 3C and Michelin Force Am2 tyres, the HellKat Pro just has hard centre knobs and a soft edge. The centre knobs wear better, accelerate quicker and offer better braking traction, while the soft edges obviously stop you coming unstuck when getting sideways in a corner. The soft rubber isn’t quite as soft as claimed though – I measured the hardness at around 55a. While this is only medium/soft, it is low-rebound, so on hardpacked trails it gives a nicely damped feel. As a front tyre, the HellKat Pro doesn’t have any bad habits; it’s stable, confidence inspiring and predictable.

On the rear it also belts along at a good lick, so if you want to get a couple of safety cranks in before a jump or to get the extra percent on the crest of a climb, this tyre isn’t going to hold you back. The only real fly in the ointment is the rear end would slip out occasionally on wet roots and didn’t quite have the same tenacity as Maxxis DHR II or WTB Judge when winching up a slippery climb. A good call if you ride hard or you’re 'are friends electric’ is to fit the AEC enduro version. You’re only looking at 100g increase, but you can easily run lower pressures with the thicker casing to enhance the grip.

There’s an obvious reason to buy the HellKat Pro ATC as it’s a lot cheaper than either the Maxxis and WTB tyres, but it matches them when it comes to performance. It doesn’t quite have the massive edge knobs of a Minion DHR II, but you can still stuff it into a turn and come out all smiles. It also covers the ground quickly and efficiently, and if the conditions are not too extreme, you could easily run this tyre all year round, saving you money and setup hassle.

Verdict

In ATC guise, the Kenda HellKat Pro is one of the lighter trail tyres on the market, so may not suit harder riding or e-bike use. It has good grip and braking traction, rolls surprisingly quickly and the moto-x style tread works in most conditions. A summer tyre you could easily run over the winter.

The original Maxxis Assegai, featured in our best mountain bike tyres round-up, was developed by DH racer Greg Minnaar, so naturally it’s available with a reinforced Double Down casing, but there are lighter Exo and Exo+ versions now available for trail riding.

The very best (and most expensive) models use the Maxxis 3C compound which is available in MaxxTerra or MaxxGrip flavours – the latter is the softer overall and the one I’d choose for the front, with the quicker rolling MaxxTerra on the rear. I’d also consider the reinforced EXO+ out back too, but with a regular EXO casing up front, but then there are so many options that you can mix and match the level of grip and reinforcement based on your ride style or the weight of the bike you’re riding.

Design and specifications

One of the prerequisites of any Maxxis trail tyre is the deep edge lugs, and the Assegai has these in spades. These big block knobs offer a predictable shoulder when stuffing the bike into a loose turn or skating down slippery off-camber.

To complement this lateral fortification, the Assegai 3C MaxxGrip EXO+ features a 3 x 2 centre tread of interlocking knobs. These are heavily chamfered for quick rolling and three are siped to create extra traction – a siped knob will splay out slightly under load creating a larger footprint on the trail. The two smaller transition knobs are not siped but they do create a sort of semi-edge and fill in this area. As a result, the tread is a little congested and in really deep mud it can struggle for purchase, but it does clear surprisingly quickly.

The Assegai is available with Maxxis EXO or EXO+ puncture protection options. Both models have medium-duty puncture protection built into the sidewall, but the EXO+ gets an extra butyl (synthetic elastomer) insert wrapped around the bead area to help protect the tyre from pinch flats and also prevent rim damage. It adds a few grams but it’s a key reinforcement to the rear tyre for e-bike and gravity use.

All Maxxis tyres are tubeless ready (TR) and I’ve found they’re some of the easiest to seat. They always go on first time and you can often inflate them and get the bead to snap into place just using a regular track pump, no matter what rim brand they’re fitted to.

This tyre is also a Wide Trail (WT), which means it’s optimised for 35mm inner width rims, adding a little more sidewall depth.

Performance

The Assegai comes in a 3C (triple) compound with either MaxxTerra (medium) or MaxxGrip (soft) option. Both tyres use a hard base rubber for stability, but with a quick rolling centre strip and then a soft rubber on the edge for grip. The MaxxGrip is super tacky, but it does show wear relatively quickly if you’re riding on dry dusty terrain, which is why I’d run the harder-wearing MaxxTerra compound on the rear and keep the MaxxGrip for the front. That way you are not literally burning rubber, which at this price is costly.

Grip levels are superb with the softer MaxxGrip tyre – it feels so surefooted and never does anything unexpected. It’s really consistent at all lean angles, even chopping and changing lines through tight singletrack. You can roost the front into a turn or lean in gradually, it works both ways. It’s a real confidence tyre that lets you push the envelope without having to pay the consequences.

It’s consistent across a range of terrain – I’ve ridden on every sort of surface from wet rocks to dusty hardpack and, apart from deep clag, it always finds grip. You can easily ride this tyre throughout the year and it works pretty good on the rear – it’s not quite as quick rolling as the Maxxis Dissector or DHR II, but it still has a good turn of speed. When cross-rutting, the traction is solid and there’s plenty of grip when winching up steep ascents.

Verdict

The Assegai is a fantastic tyre for use all year round in pretty much any condition you care to name. The only real fly in the ointment is the relatively high price, but then you are buying one of the most controlled and confidence-inspiring MTB trail/gravity tyres on the market.

The Maxxis Minion DHF MTB tyre was a game-changer when it first appeared and it’s continued to dominate the trail and hardcore front tyre market for well over a decade. A faster roll than you’d expect for the great directional and cornering grip it gives means it works both ends too. Add a wide range of carcass and compound options and if I had to pick a single (cost-no-object) tyre for every situation, it would be this one. Which is why I rate the Minion DHF as one of the best MTB trail tyres available, and it's also a great gravity option.

Design

The key to the Minion DHF’s easier roll compared to its DHR II sibling is the slightly elongated, ramped knobs, which means smaller gaps. The alternate split pair are deeply cloven front to rear too, effectively creating four smaller blade blocks that also give extra directional bite. The way those blocks can splay also partially closes what could otherwise be a grip gap over to the alternate split block and L-shaped side knobs that fan out from the shoulders. It's a side pattern so good it was moved across onto the DHR II to give the same aggressive cornering bite front and rear.

Specifications

As the DHF (and DHR II) have been around so long, they’re one of the few current top-performance tyres still available in 26in for retro riders. Maxxis has rolled out a DHF for every trend since though (including a 27.5 x 2.8in ‘Plus’ tyre), so you’re covered for almost every bike fit. The company even created a whole new WT (Wide Trail) carcass lay-up for its 2.4 and 2.6in widths, so that they shaped up correctly on rims 30mm or wider internally.

Maxxis has also expanded its casing offerings in terms of reinforcement level. The lightest option is the Exo, which is fine for XC/old school trail use; Exo+ adds a full protective wrap against cut, puncture and impact punctures for more aggressive trail/enduro use; DD is a lightweight double-ply for hardcore enduro or e-bike use; and then there are super heavyweight DH tyres if your riding is all about radical gravity runs. In contrast to many brands where performance sweet spots fall awkwardly between light and heavy-duty options, weights and ride characteristics are on point for every level too. It’s the same story with rubber compounds. The top triple compound (3C) tyres offer a MaxxTerra all-rounder mix and a super sticky, ultra grippy MaxxGrip option over a hard base for predictable behaviour and extended lifespan. If you want a relative bargain though, the basic Dual Compound tyres are a great split between cornering grip and decent rolling speed/wear life on a tough but not too heavy carcass for much less cost.

Performance

I'm lucky enough to spend most of my time on the 3C MaxxTerra version in Exo or Exo+ spec, because that comes as standard on a huge amount of test bikes. It’s also an excellent ‘context’ tyre to fit to any bike or wheel that I'm testing independently, purely because it’s basically entirely vice-free. It’s easy enough to fit to most rims and, while it’s not the simplest sealing tyre, I rarely have to abandon the floor pump in favour of a compressor to get the job done. Once inflated, it holds pressure and shape well and it’s close enough to the listed size not to make me grumble. Even the Exo version can be run at teen pressures without buckling and folding if you shunt a corner or grab a fistful of brake too hard, while the Exo+, DD and DH increase incrementally in stability and stoutness. Ride feel is appropriate for each weight/use category with a float/damping profile that flatters suspension and frame feel. As you’d hope, the WT casings are a particularly good match to currently ubiquitous 30mm internal rims, avoiding the over-stiff, numb feel that’s apparent in some other ‘stretched’ tyres.

While it looks like the centre-to-shoulder tread gap might trigger a ‘leap of faith’ lurch like the old Maxxis High Roller tyre, the DHF actually tips in really smoothly and predictably. Once you’re into the lean, you can also load it up aggressively on pretty much every surface from slippery gravel to winter slop and wet woods. There’s enough space to mean they clear mud pretty quickly, too so clogging is rarely an issue.

The longer tread blocks also mean the DHF rolls noticeably faster than the DHR II and we know a lot of people who actually run a DHF both ends for a faster, but still hard cornering combo. They are more likely to skid or slip on the back than a DHR, but no less than most other trail tyres.

While the heavier-duty DD and DH carcasses are the ones to go for if you habitually hammer tyres and wheels, the Exo and Exo + are comparatively tough in terms of pointy object and pinch punctures. They don’t rip knobs or tear sidewalls easily either, so most Minions are bald before they get binned rather than being stabbed or slashed to death. Check fresh tyres before fitting though as Maxxis does have occasional issues with warped or twisted tyres.

Verdict

Faster rolling than a DHR II, but no less grippy in turns, the Maxxis Minion DHF is still my favourite hardcore all-rounder on either end of the bike. It comes in a wide range of casing and compound options to suit all riding situations, and once you’ve found the blend that works for you, it's a fit-and-forget tyre for all reasons and seasons. Shop around for a deal, and the pricing might not be such a sting either.

The best XC tyres always used to be superlight, skimpy and somewhat sketchy in terms of protection and grip, so they accelerated and rolled super fast. But increasingly tough and technical World Cup cross-country courses mean the latest XC tyres have become more robust, bigger, and more controlled.

Some riders still prioritise maximum speed with minimum weight though, and once you start factoring in different riding conditions, the waters of which tyres to pick can get muddied still further.

That’s why we’ve brought two very different tyre experts together: Pure XC and South African stage racer, Aaron Borrill, and ultra-experienced tester, Guy Kesteven, who's been racing in every kind of British weather since the 1980s. Using the combined knowledge of these two experts, we've brought you a truly global perspective of the best XC tyres for every condition.

If you're new to cross-country riding or MTB in general and want to know more about how to choose your ideal speed-hungry tyre yourself, then we’ve got a tech FAQ at the end of this guide.

For more MTB tyre tech, see our article on everything you need to know to choose the best tyres for your riding. Or if perhaps you're here because you're an MTB-curious gravel rider, we also have a guide on the best gravel tyres.

Best XC tyres

Best classic XC tyre

The Vittoria Barzo is an absolute classic, particularly if you ride in dry, loose conditions and like to run high pressures. Aaron has spent thousands of miles training and racing with this tyre, including the technically demanding Absa Cape Epic in 2016 and 2017.

The tread pattern is burlier than some of the other options listed here, which means it digs into loose or even somewhat sloppy conditions better than most and clears OK as well. The hard, fast rolling Graphene compound still provides sterling straight-line speed, and the high-energy carcass feels fast too. If you want to run it as a rear, it works well, although many racers prefer using a Vittoria XC pairing of a Barzo up front with a Mezcal at the back.

The 120tpi nylon casing is strong, Aaron, our marathon tester, commented: "While there are lighter, perhaps somewhat livelier options available, the Vittoria Barzo is exceptional in all conditions, the only tyre I trust based on the thousands of trouble-free miles I've spent using them."

If you're looking to use the Barzo in rocky, rooty, or wet conditions, such as typical UK riding, Guy would definitely recommend opting for the Race Formulation upgrade (like the Mezcal we've listed below). It's much grippier and holds its shape far better at lower pressures than the standard harder compound. That said, Schwalbe's Rocket Ron is a more sure-footed option in slippery conditions.

For further info, see our full Vittoria Barzo tyre review.

Best budget and superlight XC tyre

If you're looking for one of the fastest and lightest XC tyres around, look no further than the Specialized S-Works Fast Trak. At 595g per tyre (29 x 2.20), it's the only option on this list that dips below the 600g threshold. Somehow, it still doesn't suffer from any hiccups in terms of protection, and we've used it for years with no dramas.

The relatively aggressive Gripton T5/T7 tread pattern rolls much faster than it looks – which makes it the go-to tyre for Specialized's trade teams at races such as the Absa Cape Epic and looser or wetter World Cup XC rounds. That makes it a great default fit for the front wheel and a great option for the rear in wetter / looser conditions.

Minimal weight means it's up the climbs or out of slow turns that the S-Works Fast Traks really give you the edge though. Accelerating and punching up steep kickers as though someone as slipped an SL e-MTB motor into your bike. The supple casing gives great ride feel and trail feedback, boosting compliance, traction and ride comfort. Like Schwalbe's Super Race, it also seems to help the S-Works tyres dodge impact and scuff damage better than a stiffer tyre. If you do want more physical protection though, the Fast Trak also comes in Control and Grid Trail versions, which work great for tougher, technical courses or 'downcountry' riding.

Not only is Specialized's XC tyre range one of the best performing fast rubber families, but it's also the most aggressively priced. Depending on your territory, that can mean they come in at a significantly lower cost than the priciest tyres here, making them an unbeatable bargain for cross-country cost-effectiveness.

For a deeper look at this tyre, head over to our full Specialized S-Works Fast Trak T5/T7 review.

Best XC tyre for all-conditions

If you're used to using a sketchy semi-slick for speed, the rapidity of Schwalbe's Rocket Ron will genuinely shock you. That makes it one of our favourite fit-and-forget year-round, all-condition speed options. The Rocket Ron has comparatively tall, angular tread knobs from the centre right over to the shoulder. That means it can pull trail tyre-style grip out of loose and sloppy situations far more reliably than other race tyres.

As a result, there's some rumble and growl on hard/road surfaces, but somehow that tread still rolls really well off-road and that's where Schwalbe's carcass tech really shines too. Choose the super supple, Super Race option and you'll get a tyre that glides and flows through rough sections without stalling or choking. It also finds extra grip where stiffer tyres slide and stutter. It performs predictably through a wide range of pressures too, so if you need to drop it into teen PSI numbers for max traction, it won't feel too drunk or floppy.

While it's got minimal physical protection, the Super Race carcass is supple enough to dodge the pinch puncture and rock scuff damage on the trail. Super Race only comes in the fastest, slipperiest AddixSpeed compound, so choose Super Ground in Addix SpeedGrip which adds an extra level of traction. Super Ground also adds more puncture and scuff protection without increasing weight. Alternatively, if you want a slightly faster Schwalbe front tyre for dry/loose/intermediate conditions, then check out the Racing Ray.

Inevitably, there are some downsides. That includes the usual Schwalbe premium price and the larger knobs will also wear down their cutting edges faster than a slick tyre. On the plus side, it's available in a huge range of sizes from 16in upwards. While the 750g weight will seem heavy compared to skinnier tyres, it's on par for the latest generation of larger-volume race rubber we've tested.

See our Schwalbe Rocket Ron tyre review for more detail.

Best XC tyre for speed

Continental's Dubnital is the successor to the Race King, which was arguably the fastest XC tyre for outright speed on the market. The downside of all that rapidity was minimal cornering and shoulder grip. The rounded carcass tipped into turns easily, but slipped out easily too. It also bounced and scuffed off rocks and roots rather than gripping predictably.

The Dubnital brings comparable rolling speeds to its predecessor and is as fast off-road as anything else out there (some rivals are faster on road, though). But unlike many of the tyres designed for outright speed, the Dubnital handles confidently and corners predictably even in treacherously wet trail conditions. Flexi knobs on the outside of the tread mean the tyres can drift rather than grip when cornering really aggressively, though.

It comes in Race or Trail casings and Rapid or Grip compounds. As you'd expect, the fastest combo is the Race Rapid, with the Trail Grip giving the most protection and confidence. Weight-wise, our 29x2.2in Race Rapid tyres came in at 621g each. The Trail option only adds 20g, so if you're unsure casing-wise, there's not much in it either way.

The Dubnital has a 330 TPI, single-ply carcass with a fairly shallow tread split into three sections. Stiffer central knobs, an intermediate transition tread, and then more flexible shoulder knobs on the outside of the tyre. It feels supple on the trail and just as fast as it's proved itself to be.

For more, see our full Continental Dubnital review.

Best XC tyre for dry, rocky conditions

Despite lacking the aggressive tread patterns of some of the XC tyres listed here, the Maxxis Aspen EXO is easily one of the most complete tyres on the market, built to deliver a balanced combination of speed and control. Lean into the first corner and the tyres bite with aggression, allowing you to push harder as you begin threading each corner together, thanks to the pronounced shoulder knobs.

Coming back to the tread pattern, the Aspens cope well in loose and wet conditions, too. They can withstand trail blow after trail blow if you're more of an aggressive rider who prefers hammering over obstacles as opposed to scything through them. As a result, Maxxis has used its EXO sidewall protection to promote confidence through rocky singletrack, and it works.

The strong sidewalls also allow you to dial in lower pressures, which unlocks even more assurance. To find the right balance requires some fettling, as tyre pressures are a personal choice. That said, once you strike that balance, you won't be disappointed. The Maxxis Aspen EXOs are easily the most underrated tyre on the market, and they shouldn't be because they're actually one of the best.

Our XC stage racer, Aaron, said: "There's a reason the Maxxis Aspen EXO is used by the world's best cross-country mountain bikers – they're fast and super-reliable."

For more information, see our full Maxxis Aspen EXO tyre review.

Best rear XC tyre for mixed conditions

Racing Ralph has been around as a name in the Schwalbe line up for decades, but it got a total overhaul a couple of years ago. That's added more grip and versatility while still keeping it a super fast, sweet riding tyre. While it's traditionally been used as a rear tyre in cross-country and marathon racing, it can also be used at the front in the right conditions now, too.

Ralph used to be a diamond tread semi-slick, but now it's grown short, closely spaced paddles across the centre to give much better grip in loose or soft conditions. That means you can pull the brakes and press the pedals a lot harder before it lets go and reshaped side knobs let you carry that speed through corners too. It does make the tyre more likely to clog in clay-style mud, though and it's not as fast as a slick tread like Schwalbe's new Rick XC or proven Thunder Burt options. The AddixSpeed rubber compound is a great balance of easy speed and decent wear without skating around and scaring you as soon as things get damp, too.

While tread and compound are great, the Super Race carcass is Schwalbe's real secret weapon. The ultra-supple construction means rolling resistance and speed sustain are outstanding. During back-to-back testing by Guy, it consistently outran less treaded tyres in roll-downs on smooth surfaces and left them for dead when things got rooty, rocky and rough. Despite nothing more than a thin anti-puncture strip under the tread, the supple construction helps it dodge damage compared to stiffer, reinforced tyres.

Even without any real reinforcement, it's relatively heavy, which inevitably cuts into instant acceleration. Schwalbe tyres also come at a premium price too.

For more, check out our full Schwalbe Racing Ralph review.

Best high volume, high velocity XC tyre

Pirelli's entry into the XC scene is a tough, grippy, great feeling, high volume tyre that's already seen World Cup and World Championship XC success with Evie Richards.

The tyres we reviewed are the Team Editions, distinguishable by Pirelli's signature bright yellow lettering on the sidewall. They also feature the brand's reinforced ProWALL casing for added protection against flats and tears. In terms of the tread, Pirelli has chosen a fast-rolling centre-tread pattern that mimics a lot of classic speed tyres like Hutchinson's Python and WTB's Nanoraptor. It morphs into wider shoulder lugs for impressive cornering grip.

As Aaron reported in his test: "Flick it into a corner and the tyre bites hard – you can feel them gripping, sometimes even hear the shoulder lugs as they fight for traction — which allows you to push harder and faster." That's a trait that's been used to great effect by Richards who wins a lot of her races by blasting the most technical descents flat out. A lot of that extra trust comes from the SmartGrip rubber, which is soft for an XC tyre and the damped, shock-absorbing nature of the ProWALL casing.

However, the rubber used is a single compound rather than being harder in the centre like most XC and trail tyres, so Scorpion doesn't roll as fast as it looks. The calm and controlled character of the tyres also makes them feel slower than a more lively, springy carcass. Despite a 120tpi, the XC RCs are not particularly light either, tipping the scales at 748g per tyre, which dulls acceleration. It does let you run lower pressures though, increasing the control and anchored feel of the tyre even further. Testing by Guy proved it's tough and controlled enough to handle seriously tech and tyre-traumatic environments like the brutally rocky Lake District in the UK, so it works as a fast downcountry option too.

In his review, Aaron also concluded: "The Pirelli Scorpion XC RC Team Edition 2.4 tyres prove wider doesn’t necessarily have to be slower. The traction and control benefits afforded by running lower pressures – something that has even greater potential on wider rims – far outweighs the benefits of lighter tyres."

Find our more in our full Pirelli Scorpion XC RC Team Edition 2.4 review.

Best XC tyre for dry/loose conditions

Vittoria's Mezcal has always been a super popular tyre, especially in areas where trail conditions are dry, dusty and loose. It's springy, skippy feel also makes it a favourite or riders who like to run higher, harder pressures. If that sounds like your kind of thing, then stick to the smaller sizes and you'll be as much of a super fan as Aaron was during testing: "As a long-time user of the Vittoria Mezcal and having raced on them in myriad countries, the way they perform never ceases to amaze me."

If there's one tyre brand that divides our XC test team though, it's Vittoria. Guy Kesteven found the older versions too slippery and skittery to feel confident on wet rocks and roots and didn't like the way they could suddenly fold and stumble if you dropped pressures low.

However, the latest Race Formulation version of the Mezcal has a new silicon-infused rubber compound and an all-new tougher, 2.4in wide carcass. Guy has been testing them for months and come away impressed as they're a lot more predictable at lower pressures. The new rubber recipe means they grip in a similar way to most other XC tyres, but the longevity of tread and construction seems even better. Unlike most '2.4in' tyres they actually blow up close to that rather than being much narrower. That does increase their weight in line with other larger volume new generation tyres, but what you lose on the scales you gain in confidence on challenging terrain.

Overall, a great update of a popular classic for more aggressive riders and courses, but still primarily a dry and loose conditions tyre rather than a wet weather winner.

For more info, check out our full Vittoria Mezcal tyre review.

How to choose the best XC tyres

While XC tyres increasingly share a lot of tech and trends with the best mountain bike tyres, there are still significant differences when it comes to race rubber. These include the rubber compound itself, durability, puncture protection, tread pattern, tyre width and tyre size.

We've covered the basics here and then covered other popular inquiries in the Q&A afterwards.

29inch wheels

29er wheels caught on first with XC riders when they realized the larger diameter meant a smoother, faster roll that literally outweighed the increased mass and slower acceleration. Now all XC race bikes, except some extra small-sized options, come with 29er wheels front and rear as standard.

Tread pattern

Big pointy knobs are great for grip but bad for rolling efficiency. That's why many of the fastest XC race tyres are what's called a semi-slick design. This uses minimal tread in the middle for a quiet, rapid roll with bigger shoulder knobs that add bite and grip when leaned into a turn.

The closer the spacing between knobs, the better they roll too. This is why you'll see some tyres like Hutchinson's Skeleton, Schwalbe's Racing Ray, Pirelli's Scorpion, Specialized's Fast Trak and others using an alternating tread that forms an almost continuous ridge down the centre of the tyre.

Rubber compounds

Harder compounds roll faster but give less grip and wear out faster. That's why a lot of designs use a dual compound with hard rubber in the centre for speed and durability and soft shoulders for cornering grip. Every brand has different recipes which they keep as closely guarded secrets, but a lot of new tyres are now coming with silicon-infused compounds. This tech comes from motorsport racing and is designed to increase wet weather grip and durability.

Carcass

XC tyres always used to have the lightest, thinnest possible construction to keep weight to a minimum for best possible acceleration. That's still the case with tyres like the Specialized S-Works range and narrower versions of other tyres here.

As courses have got tougher, though, the old wisdom that "to finish first, first you have to finish" means tyres have got a lot tougher too. That makes them more stable at low pressures, especially if the design includes reinforcement around the side wall.

Protection

As well as tougher construction in general, race tyres often come with some extra protection built in. That ranges from a thin strip of anti-puncture tape under the tread to a full reinforcing wrap from one edge of the tyre to the other.

Weight

Bigger, tougher tyres with more reinforcement are inevitably heavier, however. That means only one tyre here – the Specialized S-Works Fast Trak – weighs under 600g, and most weigh over 700g. That might not seem like a big difference, but even 100g between tyres means a lot more wheel inertia to overcome. As a result, your bike will feel slower when accelerating and climbing, particularly from lower speeds. Tougher, more controlled tyres can keep hold of speed much better through technical sections and turns, which is why most racers now run 2.4in wide options. They're still a lot faster and more responsive than trail tyres anyway – which now often weigh over a kilo each.

Price

Top quality XC tyres can cost as much as $100 / £80 / €100. Cheaper versions tend to be heavier and less grippy as they use less expensive materials in the carcass and rubber. That does extend tread life and rolling speed on road though, so they can be a good choice for bikepacking.

Specialized has also reduced its already aggressive pricing to super low levels recently too, making their XC tyre range absolute bargains if you want high speed without high spend.

Best XC tyres FAQs

How we test the best XC tyres

We've thoroughly tested all the tyres in this guide, putting them through some of the toughest mountain bike races in the world, in all weather conditions. We've been particularly assessing them for rolling speed, grip, puncture protection, weight and ease of fitting.

If outright speed is the name of the game, few tyres deliver like the Specialized S-Works Fast Trak T5/T7. As Specialized's best XC tyre, they utilise a Gripton T5/T7 compound, which the American brand also claims offers puncture protection, too. Despite the super low weight of 594g and thin sidewalls, the S-Works Fast Traks are well poised and deliver amazing feel and feedback on the trail thanks to the super-sticky T7 side compound and fast-rolling T5 centre tread.

We tested them in a variety of settings ranging from cross-country laps and open gravel roads to trickier and gnarlier trails.

Design

Visually, the S-Works Fast Trak has a very distinct look, something that helps it stand out among the rabble of other XC tyre options. The branding is fairly low-key, but Specialized makes no bones about its S-Works intentions, the latter taking on a red colour treatment. The 120 TPI 'S-Works' casing is designed to be super-lightweight and it is — 594g to be precise – but this does also mean it offers less puncture protection than its rivals.

The Fast Trak is what Specialized refers to as its mixed-condition XC race tyre boasting a T5/T7 dual compound. The 'T' indicates the damping rate of the rubber – the higher the number, the slower the rubber rebounds, and, as a result, the Fast Traks use T7 on the shoulder and T5 down the middle. The alternating diagonal centre line tread combines with closer-spaced intermediate and lower shoulder tread for increased traction and speed.

Performance

The Fast Traks are full of feel and communication, but you can't run the tyre pressures too low as the thin sidewalls do have a tendency to fold over or crumble under lateral cornering force. This lack of sidewall reinforcement is a concern for those who race competitively — XCO and marathon included — so you'll need to run higher-than-normal pressures for peace of mind. During my testing, I ran the pressures at 24-26psi front/rear (at 62kg) and this seemed to do the trick in terms of balancing control with speed. That said, there was some tyre bounce over choppier trails.

In terms of speed, the S-Works Fast Traks really show their mettle up the climbs and along rolling terrain – an attribute that allows you to accelerate and punch up steep kickers with absolute ease. Grip is in abundance, too, despite the tyre's somewhat narrow width (it's only available in 2.2in) and small tread blocks, the trail speed is up there with the Vittoria Mezcal and Bontrager XR2 Team Issue.

Even with slightly higher pressures, I still felt the need to nurse the tyres over rockier and rooty sections of trail for fear of piercing those delicate sidewalls.

Verdict

The Specialized S-Works Fast Trak T5/T7 is a really good tyre at a great price. It's light, fast, and supple, but the former comes at the expense of puncture protection – which is a big deal for the average rider. Nobody wants to flat during a race, which brings me to their intended use: racing. This is not a training tyre and should only be used in racing scenarios where keeping weight to a minimum and going as fast as possible is the chief concern.

On those grounds alone, the S-Works Fast Traks are hard to beat, but as a dedicated, all-round tyre capable of being used as both a training and racing option, you're better off with the Vittoria Mezcal or Bontrager XR2 Team Issue.

Maxxis is the most widely employed tyre on the mountain bike scene, spanning all disciplines ranging from downhill to enduro and cross-country. The tyre pictured here is the Taiwanese-based company's best XC tyre, the Maxxis Aspen EXO, which has been designed to roll with ease as well as grip like a limpet.

Ten-time XCO World Champion Nino Schurter swears by the reliability and performance-infused tyre compound. But just how good is it in real-world scenarios and, better yet, can it cope on the trails all-year round?

Design

The Maxxis Aspen is available in one casing structure only, EXO – a cut- and abrasion-resistant material. While it's not as durable as the brand's other casings, it's still pretty impressive at staving off punctures and the like while remaining as light as possible. The Aspen comes in three sizes (26-, 27.5- and 29-inch), three widths (2.1-, 2.25- and 2.40in), and two casings (60 and 120tpi).

The tyres pictured here are the 2.25in/120tpi model. Despite lacking the aggressive tread patterns of some of the other tyres listed in our best XC tyres guide, the pronounced shoulder knobs are ideally placed to deliver confident cornering, while the shallower center tread has been employed to foster flat-out speed. Of course, this does present a small trade-off when it comes to wet-weather performance. The tread pattern has a tendency to clog up, which means less grip in muddier conditions.

Performance

At 653g per tyre, the Maxxis Aspen EXO is one of the lightest options in the segment and you can feel it when the trail points upwards. This, in combination with the semi-aggressive tread pattern, helps get the power down at the rear – even on looser terrain types. Of course, this largely depends on conditions and the Aspens perform best in dry and loose conditions. In terms of lateral adhesion, the speed at which the Aspens corner is impressive. Lean into the first corner and the tyres bite with vigour, allowing you to push harder thanks to the pronounced shoulder knobs. I found the cornering precision quite surprising given the tread pattern, but the stickiness comes down to the shoulder knobs which deform under load as they dig into the trail surface.

In terms of durability, the Aspens can withstand trail blow after trail blow, which is a boon for aggressive riders who prefer hammering over obstacles as opposed to scything through them. As a result, the EXO sidewall protection – as mentioned above – promotes confidence through rocky singletrack. The strong sidewalls also allow for lower pressures, which unlocks even more assurance and cornering speed.

Verdict

There's a reason the Maxxis Aspen EXO is used by the world's best cross-country mountain bikers – they're fast and super-reliable. Despite lacking the pure, aggressive grip patterns of some rivals, the Aspens deliver enough bite to complement their outright speed. If that's not enough, the 120tpi/EXO casing provides the assurance to push harder without the worry of sidewall damage and punctures.

As far as the best XC tyres are concerned, Schwalbe’s reputation is difficult to dispute, having successfully dominated the Absa Cape Epic with Team Bulls for years under the leadership of five-time winner, Karl Platt.

The Racing Ralph Performance Line TwinSkin tyres pictured here might not be as light as the Evolution Line SnakeSkin-equipped version, but they still possess the same basic tyre architecture and tread pattern. While the Racing Ralph has traditionally been used as a rear tyre in cross-country and marathon racing, it can be used at the front when conditions permit. I spent time using it in front/rear configuration and came away mighty impressed by its behaviour and handling characteristics.

 Design and specification

In terms of design, Schwalbe’s unmistakable brand identity is hard to ignore. The silver Schwalbe logo takes up prominent real estate on the sidewall, while the Racing Ralph wordmark balances things out on the other end – it’s all very premium in look and feel. While it lacks the red or blue colour-coded circumference stripes of the Evolution Line (an attribute that denotes the Addix compound), it still cuts a distinctive facade.

It’s designed for cross-country racing, featuring a low-profile tread pattern down the centre and more prominent shoulder lugs on the sides. The Performance Line tyres pictured here weigh in at 770g a piece, which isn’t as light as you’d expect but the upshot is a super-strong casing and sidewall.

 Performance

As previously mentioned, it’s become popular for cross-country riders to use the Racing Ralph at the rear in combination with a Nobby Nic or Racing Ray up front. While this is a somewhat tried-and-tested configuration, the Racing Ralph is perfectly at home marshaling traction at the front. The low-profile tread pattern has been designed to improve rolling resistance and acceleration, and the shoulder lugs are perfectly placed to foster high grip levels in the corners. The impressive sidewall protection – dubbed TwinSkin TLR – adds assurance for when things get gnarly, but also allows lower pressures to further improve ride pliancy and traction.

The Racing Ralph is most at home in dry conditions, as its tread has been designed to deform around the obstacles. For a relatively light tyre, the Racing Ralphs were adept at dismissing the fast and semi-technical trails of Minley Manor with ease. There’s a suppleness to the casing that helps foster trust and communication from the front, while the paddle-like lugs help boost rear-end traction up the climbs.

Verdict 

With perhaps the exception of the Vittoria Barzo, the Schwalbe Racing Ralph is the most at home in all weather conditions and terrain types. Despite the toughness of the carcass, it's still prone to the odd puncture when riding aggressively, so caution should be taken if that’s your style. That said, it is an extremely reliable tyre and seldom disappoints – which is one of the reasons it’s praised by so many riders and testers around the world. It’s supple, communicative, fast, and grippy and will suit any rider, regardless of your skillset.

The Vittoria Barzo has a solid reputation among mountain bikers owing to attributes such as its reliability, speed and front-end assurance. While some pair it with a Mezcal at the rear, using it at both ends is the safest bet you can make – both as a racer and weekend rider. I've spent thousands of miles training and racing with this tyre and have never been let down. In fact, the Vittoria Barzos were faultless during the times I raced the technically demanding Absa Cape Epic.

The tread pattern is burlier than some of the other options in the best XC tyre space, but the Barzo still provides sterling straight-line speed. It's also got pretty decent clearing channels, so can perform well regardless of the weather and terrain — even in muddy conditions.

Design

Like the Vittoria Mezcal, the Barzo is also available in three distinct sidewall colours: tan, plain black and anthracite. Some markets, such as South Africa, also get it with a special Cape Cobra compound for enhanced puncture protection. It gets Vittoria's proven 120tpi nylon casing and can be had in the choice of TLR, TNT (pictured here), and rigid bead casings, complete with Graphene 4C compound. A Race Formulation four-compound version is also available, which boosts grip in wet, slippery conditions and is the best option if you're looking to run lower pressures.

Tyre widths are pretty comprehensive. The 29-inch version comes in widths of 2.1, 2.25, 2.35 and 2.60in, and Vittoria still caters to those who ride 26- and 27.5-inch wheels. Designed for ‘technical XC’, the Barzo features a centre tread with an alternating ridge design and progressive sipe angles to help bolster traction, while moto-style lugs comprise the shoulder section in a V-formation for cornering grip.

With a relatively open tread pattern, it clears mud with aplomb, but it's still a low-profile tyre, and you'll quickly find the limits of adhesion in dry and dusty terrain - conditions where the tyre is most at home.

Performance

The beauty of the Barzo's compound and tread pattern is its ability to excel in almost all conditions. For a fully lugged tyre, it rolls with the eagerness of a semi-slick, while still providing braking and cornering traction. It's also got pretty decent clearing channels, so performs well in muddy conditions, but it's in dry and loose conditions – hardpack trails in particular – where it really excels.

The evenly spread, siped tread does a sterling job in keeping you upright and allowing you to push harder through corners. Grip levels are predictable, so there are never any trust issues with the front end, and the tread pattern also makes for a great companion at the rear.

The bonus with this particular tyre comes in the form of exceptional sidewall protection. I'm yet to puncture using a Barzo and have probably done upwards of 6,000 miles in various guises – impressive for a 700g tyre.

Verdict

The Vittoria Barzo is one of the most complete XC tyres on the market. It's fast, grippy, and reliable and is very resistant to wear, meaning it will last you ages. As far as protection goes, the 120tpi nylon casing is supple but strong enough to ensure the sidewalls are well looked after, which provides the peace of mind satisfaction all mountain bikers crave. While there are lighter, perhaps somewhat livelier options available, the Vittoria Barzo is exceptional in all but the slipperiest conditions and is the only tyre I trust based on the thousands of trouble-free miles I've spent using them.

Few mountain bike tyre makers possess a portfolio as complete as Vittoria. The Italian company produces some of the most versatile and high-performing rubber options on the market, including the renowned Barzo, Mazza, and the Syerra downcountry tyre. And while the Barzo is often seen as the go-to – read best XC tyre – choice for many cross-country and marathon riders, the Mezcal is fast becoming as popular and for very good reason.

The tread pattern is purposely designed and similar to that of the Maxxis Aspen in that the centre section is packed with low-rolling tread and bookended by sharper, more pronounced shoulder knobs. It's a beautiful tyre, too – the tanwalls present a stylish alternative to the glut of dark-coloured models that comprise the best XC tyre space. I've been using this specific tyre for years, such is its brilliance on the dirt.

To refresh my opinion, I decided to re-test them on the loose and dusty trails of Minley Manor in the UK for a 12-hour mountain bike race.

Design

In terms of visual clout, there aren't many cross-country tyres out there that can compete on an aesthetic level with the Vittoria Mezcal. The tyre pictured here is the tanwall with a reversed-out logo treatment. It looks fantastic and provides another level of contrast to complement your mountain bike. They are also available in plain black and anthracite.

Available with the choice of TLR (pictured here), TNT, and rigid bead 120tpi nylon casings, the Mezcal benefits from Vittoria's proprietary Graphene-enhanced 4C compound. Weights vary from tyre to tyre, but the 29 x 2.1 version tips the scales at just 640g per unit – the 2.25 version we tested weighed just 682g per tyre. While sizing spans 26-, 27.5- and 29-inch, the latter is only available in widths of 2.1, 2.25 and 2.35in, which is plenty wide for modern cross-country racing.

The tread pattern is pretty densely packed with low-profile knobs in the middle and more pronounced lugs along the shoulders, which makes for an appreciably fast-rolling tyre, but the downside to this layout is the less-than-ideal mud clearance, but more on that later. The lugs are siped, which helps them spread out to foster better traction.

Performance

I put a pair of Vittoria Mezcals to the test on the dusty trails of Minley Manor in Camberley, Surrey at the Torq in your Sleep 12-hour MTB race and came away mightily impressed by the assurance and amazing levels of control they provided. The tread pattern, while low-profile and not very aggressive, managed to dismiss the dry and dusty course with relative ease. Even maintaining speed and traction on many of the off-camber and rooty corners, which I always find difficult to navigate. While there was nothing too alarming in terms of putting the sidewall protection to the test, I have used these tyres before on a couple of stage races back in South Africa and can vouch for their ability to handle the hostile, rocky, and thorny terrain.

While many cross-country riders will use the Mezcal at the rear and a Barzo up front, I've always felt confident using a front/rear Mezcal combination. It all comes down to finding the right tyre pressure. The Mezcal rewards with speed and control, allowing you to really dig the wheel into every corner without the fear of washing out. The only real downside is when things get wet, as the tread pattern can clog up quickly, negatively impacting grip and control in the process.

As far as outright performance goes, there's not much in it between the Maxxis Aspen, Barzo, and Mezcal. All three are very good at dismissing dusty and dry conditions, but when it comes to outright speed, the Mezcal is at the top of the pile. The supple casing and low-rolling resistance, coupled with its lightweight properties, mean you're always connected to the trail, which boosts confidence and cornering speed.

Verdict

There's a lot to like here and the Vittoria Mezcal range has something for all types of cross-country riders. As far as weight goes, only the Specialized S-Works Fast Trak is lighter, but that brings its own set of compromises to the equation. You can't go wrong with the Mezcal – the brand's rich heritage and detailed understanding of creating tyres tailored to specific disciplines is the real kicker here.

As a long-time user of the Vittoria Mezcal and having raced on them in myriad countries, the way they perform never ceases to amaze me. Of course, I wouldn't use them in wet conditions, but they're not the worst performers in the mud either. If you're looking for a reliable tyre that prioritises speed, look no further than the Vittoria Mezcal. It's a brilliant tyre for cross-country and marathon riding.

Modern bikes come loaded with rider aids and tech that allow us to ride faster than ever. However, without a doubt, one of the most important components of a bike are the tyres. Even if you have the fanciest drivetrains, the most sophisticated suspension, and the most powerful brakes, tyres are your sole connection to the ground, and if they aren’t up to the job or set up correctly, you'll be struggling on the trails.

If you're looking to upgrade your bike, opting for a set of the best MTB tyres is usually the best place to start. They will offer the best bang for your buck upgrade and can transform how a bike rides.

Choosing the right mountain bike tyres is a bit more complicated than just picking the grippiest-looking set off the shelf though. Most tyres are designed for specific types of riding or trail conditions, so it is important to do a little research to choose correctly. Here, I have broken down everything you need to know about tyres and tyre choice so you can easily choose the right tyres for your riding.

Choosing the right size tyre

Before we delve too deep into tyre tech, you need to choose a tyre that is the right size for your bike. There are a few factors that should be considered when choosing a tyre so you know it will fit.

Firstly, mountain bike wheel size, most modern mountain bikes will have either 29in or 27.5in (sometimes referred to as 650b) diameter wheels. It may also have a mixture of both (29 front and 27.5in rear) if it has a mullet, aka MX setup. Older mountain bikes and dirt jump bikes will most likely use 26in wheels, and some smaller kids' bikes will have 24in wheels.

While inches are the most common unit of measurement for MTB wheels and tyres, they may also refer to the ISO size, which is the inner bead diameter of the tyre, measured in millimetres. For reference, 29in tyres are ISO size 622, 27.5in are ISO size 584, and 26in are ISO size 559. This sizing will be correct for the majority of all MTBs. In the unlikely event that you’re reading this and have a very old and obscure bike that doesn't use the above sizing, I suggest you head over to Sheldon Brown's website for all the niche information on tyre sizing you will ever need.

Next, you will need to consider frame clearance, as this will determine the maximum possible tyre width. Almost all frame and fork manufacturers will state the maximum tyre clearance of their product. Alternatively, you can simply measure the gap between the fork legs, chainstays, and seatstays yourself. If you are measuring clearance yourself, remember to factor in mud clearance, the International Organisation of Standards (ISO 4210) quotes a minimum of 6mm between the shoulder of the tyre and frame.

Unfortunately, even with these measurements, tyre clearance can be a bit of a guessing game. Not only are there discrepancies between different brands' measurements (some tyres are narrower or wider than stated), but the rim you mount the tyre on can have a massive effect on the tyre shape. Essentially, a narrow rim will give the tyre a taller light bulb shape, while a wider rim gives the tyre a rounder, wider profile.

A rim’s effect on the shape of the tyre will affect the performance, so it is worth checking that your rim's internal width is suited to the size of the tyre you are planning on using. We are seeing 30mm inner rim diameters becoming the standard and it's generally accepted that any tyre between 2.35in and 2.8in will work well with this inner rim width. Cross-country bikes may have narrower rims, which will work better with narrower tyres (2.35in and below), and ‘plus’ (2.8 to 3.0in) tyres will need the support of a wider rim (35mm to 40mm). Rim width and corresponding tyre size aren’t an exact science, however, staying within recommended sizing will ensure your tyre performs properly and safely.

If in doubt, it's worth checking with your wheel or tyre manufacturer to see if they have recommended guidelines for their products. Here are some quick links for the main tyre brands and their tyre/rim width charts:

• Schwalbe
• Maxxis
• WTB
• Kenda

Understanding MTB tyre construction and characteristics

To understand how a tyre will perform, we need to dissect the tyre and talk about its construction, as this affects how a tyre will ride on the trails.

The tread has the most obvious effect on how a tyre’s performance. There are a wide variety of different tread patterns, but they all essentially aim to do the same thing, grip the ground when cornering, pedalling, and braking. Brands can use different tread patterns, shapes, and spacing to change how the tyre interacts with the trail surface. Manipulating tread shape can play a huge role in how a tyre performs – square edges offer more traction, while adding forward-facing chamfers increases rolling speed.

The tread can also be sipped – these are the cuts or grooves in the tread block allowing more deformation to the blocks and another edge for grip. Horizontal sipping will affect braking and acceleration grip, while vertical sipping improves cornering performance. Tread patterns are often direction-specific and can also be front and rear-specific (more on that later).

The tyre tread is made from a rubber compound which can also be used to change the ride characteristics and durability of a tyre. Softer compounds are grippier and rebound slower to reduce vibrations, but wear faster and have more rolling resistance. Harder compounds last longer and roll faster, but don’t have as much grip. Many brands will use a combination of compounds (usually referred to as dual or triple), layering softer rubber over hard to get better performance.

The casing or carcass of the tyre is the base structure of the tyre to which the tread is attached. The casing will be made up of single or multiple layers (sometimes referred to as plys) and may feature cut and abrasion-resistant inserts on the side walls and under the tread to protect against punctures.

The casing is measured in TPI (Threads Per Inch). Casings with lower TPI numbers will be more durable but heavier than higher TPI casings. High TPI casings are lighter and more supple, allowing them to conform to the terrain, but are more fragile. Dual-ply casings will use two layers to give a better balance between strength, suppleness, and vibration dampening.

A specific tyre may come in different widths as a tyre width can have a dramatic effect on how it performs. Increasing the width of a tyre also increases its footprint, overall diameter, and air volume. That means narrower tyres will roll faster on smooth terrain while larger tyres with bigger air volume will have more grip and float over rough terrain better.

None of these elements work in isolation and will have effects on other characteristics of the tyre. So while all these different parts of a tyre's construction are important, they must be considered as a system.

Tailoring tyres to your riding and the conditions

Tyres are often MTB discipline or terrain-specific and all the big manufacturers have a range of tyres to cater to every type of mountain biking, all you need to do is pick the right one. Well sort of, there is a lot of cross over and often manufacturers will have multiple different versions and price points of the same tyre, all with different characteristics. Let's break it down.

Unfortunately, it’s a little more complicated than just picking the best MTB as tyres fall into an “iron triangle”, aka a three-constraints scenario. These are grip, speed, and durability. Fast and grippy tyres will have thinner sidewalls and are more prone to punctures. Start beefing up those sidewalls though and the tyres will become heavier and feel numb and disconnected in corners. The extra rubber and protection to make a grippy, durable tyre adds a lot of weight and rolling resistance. Choosing the right model is about finding a compromise.

From discipline to discipline, tyres will have different tread patterns, compounds, and casing construction. Cross-country tyres will have a shallower tread designed to roll quickly and less puncture protection to keep weight to a minimum. Enduro, downhill, and e-MTB tyres prioritise grip and sidewall protection. Using large tread blocks and multilayered and reinforced sidewalls to protect against sharp rocks and race-ending punctures while giving more support on high-speed descents. Trail tyres sit in between the two, although a lot of trail models are becoming more heavy-duty as bikes become more capable and progressive.

The trail conditions you ride in will also play a major role in which tyre will perform the best. These are often broken down into the following tyre categories by manufacturers to make it easier:

• Mixed terrain - This usually indicates the do-everything tyre in the range, capable of performing well in a wide range of terrain and weather conditions.
• Loose - Rocky, gravelly, or sandy surfaces can shift around under the tyre and demands supportive, well-spaced knobs to search for solid ground under the loose stuff.
• Hardpack - Hard compacted dirt or slick rock in the dry. A low-profile tread or semi-slick with a soft compound is a good option as it increases the tyre contact with the surface and allows the rubber to do its work. Minimal tread severely limits loose surfaces and wet weather traction.
• Rocky - Rocky terrain has some crossover with loose and hardpack but usually indicates that a tyre has increased puncture protection against jagged edges.
• Mud - Deep mud, soft and very loose trail conditions. Mud tyres (or spikes) are usually reserved as race-only due to their very specific use case. They feature wide-spaced tall lugs and a narrow tyre width to dig into the soft surface and avoid getting clogged up. If the tread can't dig into the trail surface, they struggle for grip, making mud tyres lethal on rock slabs and hardpack sections. Back in the day, World Cup downhill mechanics used to cut the blocks on mud tyres shorter, since then some brands have released cut-spike-specific tyres that share the same wide spacing but with a more versatile tread block height.

The gradient of a trail will also play a role in choosing a tread pattern. Steeper trails demand more braking performance, so speccing a tyre with a broad soft tread pattern will help slow you down faster. On flatter trails, braking performance isn’t as demanding, however, without gravity pushing you down the hill, you will want to prioritise rolling speed.

As we previously mentioned, tread patterns can be front and rear-specific. The front and rear tyres perform very different tasks, with the front wheel handling cornering and the rear braking and acceleration. With that in mind, it makes sense to tailor the tread pattern accordingly, particularly with gravity-orientated tyres where grip is of the most importance. That doesn’t mean they can’t be run as a matching pair, Maxxis’ Minion DHF and Minion DHR II are the perfect examples of this. Using two DHFs or DHR IIs is a popular setup, with the front and rear DHR IIs proving to be a quick rolling cornering combo, while two DHFs are almost unbeatable on steep, fast terrain.

Mixing and matching different models of tyres is also a great way to tailor performance. Running a soft grippy tyre up front and a harder compound or lower profile tyre at the rear is a go-to for most rugged XC, downcountry, and trail riders as it helps enhance cornering grip without sacrificing too much rolling speed. On the other hand, e-MTBs and downhill bikes may run a thicker casing rear tyre with a thinner front enduro tyre to help save a little weight.

How much should you spend on tyres?

With tyres, you can absolutely buy speed. Better materials, more advanced rubber compounds, and improved manufacturing processes all add up to faster, grippier, and lighter tyres. That's not to say you should go out and spend all your money on tyres, as ultra-grippy models may be overkill for your type of riding and will usually wear out a lot faster as well.

As a general rule, for dry weather XC and trail riding, an endurance rubber or dual-compound tyre will have adequate grip and roll quickly. For wet weather or a more gravity-focused, softer rubber and triple compounds are the way to go. For full enduro and downhill, look at getting the stickiest rubber and most robust sidewalls.

For a good quality MTB tyre, prices range between $60 / £40 and $90 / £70.

Schwalbe’s Rocket Ron has been one of the best XC tyres for ages, particularly as the front wheel partner to Racing Ralph. While Racing Ray has now replaced it for drier conditions, Rocket Ron is still a brilliantly versatile high-velocity tyre for front or rear use all year round. That comes at a high price and relatively high weight, though, and we’d like to mix up the compound and carcass options more.

Design and build

With its mid-height, wide-spaced, angular blocks, the Rocket Ron tread looks more like a trail tyre than a typical XC design. The shoulder knobs are bigger and more angular than most too, with sipe slots on top to allow surface deformation.

The red stripe denotes the use of Schwalbe’s hardest, fastest Addix Speed compound. The stripe is also offset to the rider's left to make it easy to check whether it’s fitted the right way round.

I tested the Super Race carcass, which is the most supple construction option in the Schwalbe arsenal. It’s only got a thin strip of puncture protection under the crown of the tread and reinforcement right against the rim edge though. Despite that, it’s still slightly heavier than the Super Ground option, which has a full wrap of puncture protection and ‘Snake Skin’ carcass strengthening. That makes it one of the heavier XC tyres around in the 29 x 2.35in size I tested, but comparable with 2.4in tyres from Vittoria, Hutchinson, Pirelli and others.

Rocket Ron also comes in a cheaper ‘Performance’ version, as well as an unprecedented range of sizes, from 20in kids' size upwards.

Performance

Having worked my way through a ton of different XC and fast trail tyre options over a number of years, it takes a lot for one to make a significant impression. Where Ron wins though, is by matching Rocket level speed to impressively tenacious grip in a wide range of conditions. The block-shaped, mid-height tread gives sharper, better supporting working edges compared to tear drop and paddle-style treads. There’s way more to work with than really low-profile ‘semi-slick’ designs too. Even with the hardest of Schwalbe’s Addix compounds, grip in wet and slippery conditions is as good, if not better, than most other race rubber too.

The real surprise is while it growls and grumbles more than slicks or low-tread tyres on tar surfaces, subtle ramping means it still rolls OK on the road. Get it into the rough and that ultra-supple Super Race carcass really comes into its own. With no big sheets of protective material in the mix, it’s free to flow and flux over roots, rocks and ripples rather than getting bounced and stalled. That lets Rocket Ron keep pace with tyres that outroll it on Tarmac, and the rougher the terrain, the more that Schwalbe Super Race advantage becomes obvious.

As well as saving energy and maintaining momentum, that compliance also gives better traction, amplifying its mechanical grip even further. The carcass is still predictable at lower pressures too, rather than suddenly folding and flopping. Even at lower pressures, it still feels alive rather than sluggish, and while the weight dulls initial acceleration compared to superlight tyres, the overall vibe is definitely high velocity.

Another surprise from testing the Super Race carcass on Rocket Ron, Racing Ray and Racing Ralph for a couple of years, and Super Race Wicked Will for a couple of months, is how survivable it is. While there’s very little protection built in, the pliable character actually seems to dodge impact and scuff damage better than Super Ground tyres. The only issue I’ve had is premature sidewall wear if used with a broader, harder type of tyre insert, such as Cush Core, but that hasn’t caused any leaking. Better survivability increases value too, as does on-site event support at most major races in the UK at least, but it’s still an expensive tyre that’s not often discounted.

Verdict

Rocket Ron has been around for a while, but updated carcass and compound tech means it’s still ahead of the game in techier, more slippery situations. The fact it gives you a grip advantage without obviously compromising speed or survivability makes it a truly standout tyre. Especially as the original Maxxis Forekaster, which used to run it very close, was replaced by a heavier, slower version. That said, I think using the slightly softer Addix SpeedGrip compound in the Super Race, not just the Super Ground models, would flatter the talent of the tread pattern even more.

Now Nobby Nic has become a more aggressive tyre, I’d love to see Rocket Ron on a Super Trail carcass for fast general use too. That’s definitely greedy though, seeing as there are already so many versions of Ron available from tiny 16in to 2.8 plus sizes. That leaves only the price to really grumble about, but at least you’re buying a genuinely exceptional tyre rather than paying more for meh.

The Pirelli Scorpion XC RC Team Edition 2.4 tyre boasts a 10 percent wider footprint than the Scorpion XC RC 2.2 but utilizes the same low and fast-rolling center block formation that transitions to wider shoulder lugs. The extra girth promises improved grip and cornering speed thanks to the ability to run super-low tyre pressure but this has done little to affect rolling performance.

The carcass construction takes on the same blueprint as the narrower XC RC tyres with a supple 120tpi casing and SmartGrip rubber compound. Like many of the best XC tyres, it can be had in two sidewall options: Lite MTB and ProWall. As the name suggests, the Lite foregoes any kind of protection to minimise weight and maximise speed, while the ProWall incorporates another layer of woven nylon at the sidewalls for extra protection against cuts and punctures. I tested the latter in various trail conditions to put the casing and tread to the test.

Design

The Pirelli Scorpion XC RC is available in one size only (29-inch) but two widths: 2.2- and 2.4in. The latter adds 50g over the lighter 2.2in tyre. On my scales, the 2.4in Scorpions weighed in at 748g a pop. The Pirelli Scorpion XC RC Team Edition 2.4 are distinguishable by way of the yellow Pirelli and Scorpion wordmark logo on the sidewalls, which double up as a distinctive and aesthetically pleasing colour play – especially when looking at the somewhat duller options out there.

The Scorpion XC RC’s tread layout has been designed to work best in dry conditions and naturally excelled when put to the test at the loose and dusty Minley Manor trails. Since that race, I’ve used them in muddier conditions and have come away mighty impressed with their all-round ability. The tyre itself has been optimised to play best with internal rim widths of 30mm but still paired well with my Bontrager Kovee Elite 23mm carbon rims.

Performance

When it came to this particular tyre design, Pirelli called upon its decades worth of experience in motocross and rally to come up with the SmartGrip compound (now been updated to its Race XC compound with Race and Sport options – Ed). The result is a tyre that benefits from both puncture resistance and all-weather grip properties. As a result, the Scorpion XC RC is pretty adept at riding in varied conditions: dry, loose and wet terrain included. While most of my testing was relegated to dry and grippy trails – conditions best suited to the tread pattern – it managed just fine in the wet and didn't clog up entirely. This, however, is obviously dependent on just how sloppy things are, but in the mild, northern hemisphere colder season conditions, it will manage just fine in the mud.

The fast-rolling centre-tread pattern delivers exceptional straight-line speed. Even up steep, punchy climbs, the Pirellis deliver – thanks to the huge traction afforded by running lower tyre pressures. The wider shoulder lugs come into their own when things get more sinuous, delivering feelsome cornering grip. Flick it into a corner and the tyre bites hard – you can feel it gripping, sometimes even hear the shoulder lugs as they fight for traction – which allows you to push harder and faster.

In fact, for a tyre as wide and heavy as the Pirelli Scorpion XC RC Team Edition 2.4, they are as responsive as lighter rubber options such as the Vittoria Mezcal and Bontrager XR2 Team Issue.

Verdict

The Pirelli Scorpion XC RC Team Edition 2.4 tyres prove that wider doesn’t necessarily have to be slower. The exceptional traction benefits afforded by running lower pressures – something that has even greater potential on wider rims – far outweigh the benefits of lighter tyres. At 748g a piece, it might not be the lightest or cheapest XC tyre on the market, but it is one of the most complete. If you’re looking to improve your cornering speed without sacrificing climbing efficiency, you can’t go wrong with the Pirelli Scorpion XC RC. That said, if the Team Edition 2.4 is too wide or heavy for your liking, the regular and lighter 2.2in version is a worthy alternative.

The Cotton TLR tyre launched at the start of March this year, and the release officially marked the moment when Specialized Cotton tyres received the tubeless treatment. Now, these are the tyres you see being raced on nearly exclusively by Specialized-sponsored teams and riders.

Around the time of the launch, we saw this model being used during Opening Weekend this year. Demi Vollering also used the 32mm version to win at Omloop, as did Franziska Koch at Paris-Roubaix. The tyres hit the ground running, and you can see them being widely used at the top level by teams like Soudal-Quickstep and Red Bull-Bora Hansgrohe.

These tyres take the well-regarded Specialized Cotton tyre platform and make it tubeless-friendly. The tyres use a 320 TPI construction, and are available in 28, 30 and 32mm sizes.

I’ve been testing them out in a 32mm width, doing general riding, training, and a road race over a few months.

Plenty of riders like the Cotton family, but at times, you hear stories of poor puncture resistance and a short shelf life from these race tyres. I’ve put in the hard yards on my home roads for months to properly test them.

If you are looking for new race tyres, have also been Cotton curious or are thinking about switching, this review should help you out.

Design and aesthetics

It seems to me from watching a few YouTube videos and picking up on bits of chat from WorldTour teams that these are the tyres that pro riders wanted: a bigger, tubeless-friendly Cotton option in short, and it seems that is now what they have.

We’ll kick off with the specs. The Cotton TLRs are tubeless-friendly and have a 320TPI construction, which should help produce the fast, supple ride quality they are famed for.

The tyres are available in new, bigger sizes: 28, 30 and 32mm, which makes them bang up to date.

The tyres use the top-level Specialized Dual GRIPTON Compound, T2/T5, and combine a smooth centre tread with the fine sidewall tread that features across most of the Specialized road tyre range.

According to Specialized, the tyres have improved puncture protection, and the new vulcanised construction reduces drag and rolling resistance by 2 watts compared to the Turbo TLR.

The casing still features cotton, but there's now a tubeless bead and 'poly cotton corespun casing' which uses a polyester core with cotton fibres. This is how the brand has married the popular cotton casing with reliable tubeless performance. You can still run them with a tube if you like, but the brand still offers the tube-specific Cotton folding tyre in a 26 and 28mm size.

Cotton tyres have always looked stylish. There's only one colour version to choose from here: the 'tan sidewall' option you see in the images, and the tyres have small red hot patch logos with 'Specialized' and 'Cotton TLR' on the tyre sidewall.

There is also some inflation information at the edge of the sidewall and two tread wear indicators, which are on the opposite side of the tyre to the hot patch.

The tyres do have a rotational direction arrow, so make sure you adhere to this, despite the very fine tread. The maximum recommended pressure for hookless rims is 73 PSI, and 50-80PSI on anything else for the 32mm size.

Overall, it all makes for a bang-up-to-date tyre that still carries a hint of old-school styling for me.

Performance

My last experience with a member of the Cotton family was with the Turbo Cotton Hell Of The North - a fast cotton, tube-specific tyre with slightly more tread that was used in races like the Tour of Flanders within the last five years.

I loved that tyre's performance, but was excited and slightly concerned about how the marriage of Cotton casing with tubeless compatibility would play out. Problematic tubeless tyres won't get far these days. Would the lightweight cotton casings mean constant sealant seepage and top-ups? I had seen these tyres with sidewall sealant applied at Opening Weekend and wanted to know if there was a trade-off for the speed. It turns out I did not need to worry; the Cotton TLR is something of a home run for Specialized.

I have tested the tyres on a pair of Roval Rapide CLX III wheels I am also reviewing, and needed to fit these tyres, switching from the stock Turbo TLR rubber.

The Rovals have a 21mm internal width front and rear, and my 32mm tyres measured up at a shade over 32mm.

Fitting the tyres was very easy on those particular wheels; the initial tubeless setup produced a fair amount of sidewall seepage, which needed cleaning up, but I was able to seat and inflate the tyres with a standard track pump, which is always nice and a good indication that the rim/tyre pairing will play nicely together.

Since that initial seepage, the tyres have behaved perfectly: zero sidewall seepage, leaking, excessive loss of pressure or any other issues. They have been fit-and-forget in this regard; full marks here when it comes to living with them.

I have used them for close to 1000 miles, tackled a local road race with them, and have picked up zero punctures or any cuts that produced sealant spray as far as I can tell. For some context, my local roads in the West Midlands, UK, are far from perfect, with plenty of rough tarmac and potholes.

On close inspection for this review, the front wheel's tyre tread is still in excellent condition, with no visible cuts or nicks to the tread or sidewall, so this is encouraging.

The rear has two small nicks and some signs of wear. I can see where I locked the back wheel up braking after a car pulled in front of me, for instance, but generally the tyres are in great condition.

I've used them for a range of road riding, and whilst these are clearly race or performance-orientated tyres, I haven't found them so fragile that training or general riding on them would be risky or a waste of money. They sit in the 'fast summer all-rounder' box for me as an amateur. It's worth making the point, however, that at times, it can be the luck of the draw with punctures; different riders will have different experiences, but I'm confident these aren't flyweight race-day-only tyres.

We haven't tested these tyres on the Silverstone rolling resistance rig or in the tunnel yet, but I'm confident they will make our next test cohort when we do another. I'm keen to see how they compare to the GP5000 variants and the Vittoria Corsa Pros.

In terms of my own experience, they have been excellent; they feel zippy, fast rolling and exciting to ride, and I can say from my own experience of riding and racing on top-end performance tyres, they feel like they comfortably belong in this bracket.

I feel totally confident cornering on them, and have enjoyed what the 32mm size has brought to the table in terms of comfort, grip and rolling resistance on my home roads (though Specialized does say the CLX III wheels are optimised for 28s)

Value

We're looking at an RRP price of $109.99 / £85 / €99 for these tyres in all three sizes, although like most things in the bike world, you may be able to find them for less online in time.

Personally, I would benchmark these, as mentioned, against the GP5000 S TR and the Vittoria Corsa Pro. If you are shopping for performance road tyres, these three, along with a few other models, dominate the conversation. Official pricing-wise, we are almost at the same price as the Corsa Pro at £90.00 / $104.99 / €95.95, for example.

In reality, the Continental and Vittoria options can be found for less than the Cotton TLR right now, though it must be said they have been on the market a lot longer.

I love riding with them, but I would be happy spending less and buying a GP5 or Corsa Pro for my own bike; what might swing it is what we find when we test these tyres for rolling resistance.

Verdict

Specialized has done an excellent job with the Cotton TLR; it has seemingly nailed the job of blending the cotton performance that has long been celebrated by riders with reliable tubeless performance. As mentioned, the tyres have behaved flawlessly for me aside from that initial setup seepage.

They look good in my opinion, and feel fantastic in use; fast, engaging and grippy. There's a hint of retro styling, in a good way, and they still make me feel like I'm riding on special tyres.

Lighter + Stronger + Faster = Success. That's the impossible equation engineers face whenever they develop a new cycling product, and immense time, energy, research, and dollars go into every undertaking when those engineers get cooking. On rare occasions, the impossible equation becomes possible. Such was the case with hookless rims, which were, in fact, lighter, stronger, and faster than hooked rims.

Yet we're now watching hookless rims face a crucial inflection point. Pro riders fear hookless rims may not be safe, fueled by notable incidents such as Thomas De Gendt's 2024 UAE Tour crash; consumers want to know if they pose real benefits; and manufacturers are unsure if consumer sentiment will drive ridership right back where it came from, with hooked rims becoming de rigueur once again.

It's an important moment not only for hookless rims, but also for the bicycle industry as a whole, which has long struggled to provide narrative clarity on such issues. That's partly because these technologies are, well, quite complicated. But it also comes down to responsibility — and cooperation. We have seen such dissonance with bottom bracket standards time and time again (remember the creaks that came along with early Press-Fit bottom brackets?), headset standards (new sizes, new integrations, proprietary tools, etc), and even hub spacing (Boost, Boost 148, Super Boost, and many more hub spacings necessitating new frame designs and a lack of backward compatibility). These new technologies are not without benefits or sacrifices. And often they create heated debates as various segments of the bike industry struggle to catch up with new technology.

So when it comes to hookless rims, history repeats itself. "Nobody is addressing the real issues," said Jeff Schneider, Head of Product & Business Development at Cadex Cycling. "They are just pointing fingers."

And the real issue, Schneider believes, has less to do with a bicycle rim's retention system and more with system precision. For any wheel system to work reliably, tolerances between these two distinct products must be closely monitored and controlled.

Such precision requires extremely close collaboration between wheel and tyre manufacturers, or vertical product integration – one brand creating both the wheel and tyre – both of which are difficult business propositions. So what does the future hold for hookless rims? Let's take a closer look.

What is a hookless rim?

Simply put, a hooked rim features a protrusion on the inside of both rim walls that acts as a stop or retainer to keep the tyre affixed to the rim at full pressure. A hookless rim, as the name suggests, doesn't have this protrusion and instead features flat-faced rim walls. In theory, if the tyre bead and the hookless rim wall are both manufactured to precise specifications, the tyre should stay affixed to the rim using the air pressure alone, just as it would on a hooked rim - or more broadly in the automotive industry - but without the need for the extra material inherent in a bead hook.

More recently, micro-hooked rims have entered the market. These are essentially hooked rims, but the hook itself is much smaller. This is supposed to hit the middle ground between hookless and hooked rims (even though technically, a micro-hooked rim is just a hooked rim).

To ensure that tyres and rims are built to size with some consistency, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) defines specific dimensions in millimetres. Most tyre and rim manufacturers operate off ETRTO specifications, and those manufacturers that have taken tubeless and hookless systems very seriously often exceed ETRTO specifications to ensure tight tolerances that prevent tyre blow-offs.

In the 1970s, hooked rims became the standard to accommodate folding bead tyres, which were lighter and allowed riders to run higher pressures. To ensure these types of tyres stayed on the rim at higher pressures, manufacturers integrated hooks into the rim wall.

These hooks provided a mechanical support for the tyre beads so they didn't disconnect from the rim. The hook essentially protruded inward, 'hooking' the tyre bead and preventing it from sliding up and off the rim. This was necessary because the beads of these new tyre types could stretch, whereas older wire-bead tyres did not.

This was very new territory in those days. But it was also a welcome change from glueing tyres onto the rim, such was the necessity with tubular tyres. These are essentially self-contained units; to put it simply, the inner tube and the tyre itself are one unit. There’s no tyre bead on a tubular tyre; it is simply a circular tube, with the rubber tread on the outer face, and cotton (or nylon/polyester) on the inner face, and it must be glued to a tubular-specific rim with several layers of glue or mastic.

For consumers, the switch meant less time prepping and maintaining the bicycle, and more time riding it. Tyre construction also advanced, allowing new materials to be used in compounds, beads, and layers. Pro cyclists, however, stuck with glue-on tubular tyres for a variety of reasons. Primary among them: the rider could still ride the bike even if a tubular went flat. The tyre was likely to stay affixed to the rim longer than a hooked tyre would.

Fast-forward about 40 years, and a chain of events was coming to a head thanks to another set of trends: lower tyre pressures in road cycling and tubeless tyre adoption, as well as the advancement of tyre technology that meant their beads resisted stretching more successfully.

Hookless rims weren't brand new at this point. They had long been working well on the mountain bike side, where lower tyre pressures have long been the trend and tubeless tyres are more or less standard.

Tubeless tyres rely on an airtight seal between the rim and tyre, and they can mate more precisely with hookless rims. So, as study after study showed the benefits of lower tyre pressures in road cycling, and tubeless systems became more reliable and viable, hookless rims became worthy of exploration.

On top of that, eliminating the hooks from rims meant a simpler manufacturing process, which not only reduced cost but also weight in the rim. Simpler tooling also meant a more refined finished product, as carbon wheels had, at that point, become the wheel material of choice for a massive swathe of the cycling population.

"Several years ago, the hook of hooked rims was formed in the manufacturing process using a silicone mandrel, as it was flexible enough to be removed post-curing," Hunt Bike Wheels engineering tandem Robert Fields and Paddy Brown explained. "By contrast, hookless rims could be formed with a one-piece steel mandrel. The steel mandrel allowed for more accurate rim internals due to its rigidity, as the silicone could expand and move in curing. This accuracy and consistency allowed for higher strength-to-weight ratios in layups used to make the rims, as well as a lower discard rate.

"We now use three-piece steel mandrels to make the tyre channel of all our hooked rims. This tooling is more complicated and expensive, but allows for the same, more accurate rim internals as the hookless one-piece steel mandrel, and delivers the same accuracy and consistency. That means there isn't any strength and weight difference between two similar hooked and hookless rims."

And there was precedent for the move. Mountain bikers had been using hookless rims for years, as the transition to tubeless tyres had come to that segment of the sport much earlier than their road counterparts. The move to road tubeless, and the peloton’s (eventual) embrace of it, ushered in the opportunity for hookless rims to take hold on the road. The growing pains had hit the mountain bike world much earlier, too, allowing wheel manufacturers to solve the problem of 'burping', or the tyre momentarily dislodging from the rim and allowing air to escape. It all seemed poised for hookless success.

Hookless rims, it turned out, needed to work in close conjunction with high-quality tyres with beads that could form an airtight seal with the rim wall. And that's what happened: wheels and tyres worked together to create airtight seals that served mountain bikers well for years. But road adoption has been a bumpier ride.

A transition to pavement sparks controversy

The notion of implementing hookless rims in road wheels came about as tyre sizes started trending larger and air pressures lower. Test after test hit the media, extolling the rolling resistance advantages of going wider, at lower tyre pressures. Then came road tubeless, and the timing seemed perfect for hookless rims to make their pavement debut.

All of those trends played perfectly into the hookless paradigm. Improved efficiency, comfort, grip, puncture resistance, and control all come as part and parcel with hookless systems.

That, coupled with the growth of gravel racing, provided the spark wheel manufacturers needed to make hookless road wheels a reality. Since gravel tyres are generally wider and run at a lower pressure, the impacts of hookless rims weren't really felt widely one way or another. But on the pavement, in the peloton, hookless rims caused worry among racers.

Crashes are inevitable. But as the industry had seen when disc brakes were introduced to the pro peloton, it's easy to fixate on a scapegoat. Back then, any cut in a crash was attributed to the spinning blades of death, AKA disc brake rotors. Hookless rims took a beating in a similar fashion as a few high-profile crashes led to media coverage and rider complaints.

But crashes are complex things. "With any crash, there tend to be several variables that are in play," the engineering duo from Hunt Wheels highlighted. "So pinning a crash on one piece of the puzzle is always a bit dubious."

Lennard Zinn, framebuilder, author, and longtime VeloNews Magazine tech writer, recently wrote a series of newsletters on the subject of crashes that may or may not have been caused by hookless rims. And he noted a few key points:

"Where hookless versus hooked comes into play is a secondary effect from the reduced tyre pressure required on hookless wheels for safety, due to lower friction between the flat rim wall and the tyre sidewall (versus a hook-bead rim wall)," said Zinn.

"With lower tyre pressure, the cushioning of the rim from hard impacts is reduced, making cracking of the rim more likely. This is somewhat counterbalanced by hookless rim walls often being stronger than hook-bead ones due to being thicker, and having continuous fibres running up to and back down from the top of the rim wall, rather than ending at the edge of the rim hook. And we also now understand that lower tyre pressure often reduces rolling resistance, so riders might use lower tyre pressures on hook-bead rims for that reason, rather than being mandated to do so by the rim brand."

In other words, hookless rims work best in low-tyre-pressure setups, which can lead to harder direct impacts to the rim. But hookless rims are also built to be stronger than hooked rims in those high-impact areas. That said, a rider of a hooked rim can also run lower tyre pressures, leading to the same types of impacts. While brands are now starting to strengthen layups to match hookless rims, that's not always the case. And whenever a rim is subject to a large enough impact to take the wheel out of round, the tolerances are no longer consistent, which can lead to failures regardless of whether or not a hook is present.

"The problem in these crashes in which the tyre comes off of the rim hinges primarily on a carbon rim and a road tubeless tyre," said Zinn. "A hook-bead rim won't make it less likely for the tyre to come off than a hookless rim after an impact that cracks the rim. However, higher tyre pressure allowed on the hook-bead rim might prevent the rim from cracking in the first place."

Unfortunately, that runs counter to trends, in which riders are running lower tyre pressures to increase grip in corners and lower rolling resistance. It's one trade-off for another.

Cadex's Schneider agreed that the issue is far more complex than simply saying one type of rim is better than the other. "Rider concerns are understandable, but the discussion often oversimplifies what is, in fact, a systemic issue. The most credible position is not that concerns are imaginary, but that many incidents likely involve multiple contributing factors, such as tyre compatibility, bead stretch, pressure, installation, or use outside recommended limits, rather than hookless architecture alone. That is why blaming 'hookless' as a single root cause can be misleading."

There's a keyword there – systems – that perhaps owns an outsized heap of responsibility for the hookless debate we find ourselves in today.

The solution: compatibility and wheel systems

It's long been an inside joke in the bike industry: A new 'standard' comes along that's not standard at all. Company A develops a new technology, but companies B through Z don't offer complementary products that make adoption of the new tech easy for the consumer. It's happened over and over again, from bottom brackets to stems to headsets and even wheels and tyres.

Such is the saga with hookless rims. Wheel manufacturers were relatively quick to find a new way to make the wheel lighter, stronger, and more useful at low tyre pressures. The problem was that tyre development hadn't advanced just as quickly.

"The broader point is that hookless, hooked, and micro-hooked systems all rely on the same basic requirement: a precise rim–tyre interface and a tyre bead that remains within specification," said Schneider. "If the bead stretches beyond tolerance, retention can be compromised on any rim style. In that sense, this is more of a broader compatibility and standards conversation than a simple 'hookless is unsafe' conclusion."

It's no surprise then that Cadex has long promoted wheel 'systems' in which the tyres are developed to work specifically with the rims. That has never been as vital as it is now, with hookless systems. By controlling the tolerances and interface between both the rim and the tyre, a manufacturer can ensure the hookless system works reliably, and we don't find ourselves wondering if that tyre that blew off the rim at the most recent race somewhere in the mountains was due to a hookless rim, a pothole knocking a wheel out of round, or just pure dumb luck.

The problem is solved, right?

A few key problems are preventing widely adopted system integrations. First, few brands are set up for vertical integration – that is, wheel brands make wheels, and tyre brands make tyres. Few brands make both. That means various brands need to communicate with each other well to ensure tolerances are met or exceeded, often well beyond what ETRTO standards dictate. And while wheel company A may have the funds and desire to produce hookless rims, tyre company B may not be similarly enthused – or even able to produce a new-specification tyre to work with a system that may or may not end up sticking around long enough to provide a healthy return on investment.

The second problem is consumer sentiment. Interchangeable components have long been a part of cycling builds. Over the last decade or so, that has certainly changed, with the likes of integrated cockpits, internal cable routing, and other complexities making non-OEM parts less compatible with high-end bikes. Still, wheels and tyres have largely remained interchangeable.

Arguably, the debate around hookless rims might also be applied to hooked and micro-hooked rims. Tolerances must be tight for any of those systems to work. Hookless rims have brought that notion to the forefront.

Schneider summed it up nicely: "The industry has spent a lot of time debating hookless versus hooked, but the more important conversation is how precisely the rim, tyre, and pressure are engineered to work together as a system."

Systems require collaboration between wheel brands and tyre brands, or, for maximum consistency, vertical integration in which one brand controls the design and manufacture of both wheel and tyre. Easy peasy, right?

Choosing the best gravel bike tyre can be an absolute game changer for your ride experience, inspiring confidence (or not), and sometimes even making the difference between riding and walking. The Pirelli Cinturato Gravel S sits at the most aggressive end of the gravel tyre spectrum, and is unapologetically focused on traction rather than speed, designed to keep things grippy when the going gets muddy.

I tested the tyres in a 700x45c size, in what has been one of the wettest winters on record. From January through March, I’ve ridden mostly on bridleways and purpose-built trails around Bristol (known for its sticky clay mud), as well as on a 3-day bikepacking trip in the Scottish Highlands. With a decent number of miles needed to reach the trails in Bristol, the test conditions highlighted the Cinturato Gravel S’s compromises and strengths, and ultimately I found myself riding where I may have previously spun out and had to walk.

Design and Aesthetics

The Pirelli Cinturato Gravel S is the slowest rolling tyre in the gravel range, but it’s also the most aggressive in mud as one of the chunkiest gravel bike tyres around. In a gravel line-up that includes the faster rolling Cinturato Gravel H for hardpack and dry conditions, the mixed terrain Gravel M, and the race focused Gravel RC, the Gravel S is definitely the mud specialist. These are the tyres you put on for waterlogged trails in a wet winter like the one we’ve recently experienced in the UK, much like the Vittoria T90 we also tested recently.

The Gravel S features widely spaced and chunky centre knobs, paired with aggressive side lugs that almost stray into mountain bike territory. The design intent is clear; dig into soft terrain, shed mud, and provide stability when conditions are at their most slippery.

Pirelli claims the tyre prioritises “control and safety in every condition”, and that is obvious in the tyre’s hardy construction. The Speedgrip compound, shared across much of its off-road range, aims to balance grip with durability and puncture resistance, rather than chasing outright rolling speed. The reinforced TechWALL casing is built around a 60TPI fabric, adding a further layer of protection, and giving the tyre a distinctly tough feel in the hand.

The trade off here is of course weight. The 45mm version comes in at roughly 570g, which puts it on the heavier side of the scale. However, they’re not too dissimilar to the similarly rugged Vittoria Terreno T90 at 544g, or the mud-geared, but now discontinued Schwalbe G-One Ultrabite at 530g.

The tyre is tubeless-ready and hookless compatible, and I mounted the 45mm pair on a set of Hunt 4 Season Gravel wheels on my Fairlight Secan (which has clearance for 50mm on 700c wheels). In terms of look, the tyres are unapologetically rugged. The gumwalls definitely made my Secan look more sturdy workhorse than slick gravel racer, but that’s the kind of reliability I want when I’m tackling the slick clay-mud around Bristol.

Performance

Living in the city, my off-road riding usually starts with at least 30 minutes on tarmac, and so my first experience of the Gravel S was drag. The combination of large knobs and a sturdy casing creates a lag, which is a reminder that they were not designed with smooth asphalt in mind, and I was certainly reminded of this tyre choice on group rides with significant tarmac sections. Compared with faster rolling options like the Cinturato Gravel H, or something racier like the Schwalbe G-One RS, you’ll definitely notice yourself pushing harder.

But the moment I turned onto my sloppy local trails, the story changed entirely.

Over the course of testing from January through March, the Gravel S proved to be a confidence-inspiring tyre once pointed off-road. From ankle-deep mud to slick limestone climbs and even the XC loops at the trail centre, the tyres consistently delivered impressive traction, which had me riding with trust.

On flat but muddy sections, I was able to cut through quagmires that would usually have me spinning out. In one particular boggy spot, I was able to ride through so easily that I turned my bike around to ride over it a few more times in awe. The tall centre knobs dig in deep, allowing you to keep momentum where less aggressive tyres might spin out. I also found them to be very grippy when cornering, and I felt in control thanks to the pronounced shoulder knobs.

As described by Pirelli, that sense of security is arguably the Gravel S’s USP. In sloppy winter riding conditions where traction can be unpredictable, the tyres offer a boost of confidence that encouraged me to ride more aggressively – or at least, not to worry about slipping out. Descending muddy trails felt controlled, and grip was dependable even on wet limestone. The tread pattern is excellent at shedding mud, and there never seemed to be any build up.

I ran the tyres tubeless at around 35-40psi, which gave a smooth ride on rough bridleways without much trail chatter. The tubeless setup was mostly straightforward, and after warming the tyres by the radiator I was able to seat them with a tubeless pump on the first try. There was a slow leak after the initial set up and I found the tyre flat after a few days without riding, but they now seem to have sealed well and I’ve had no problems since then.

Thanks to the tough composition, the Gravel S has been impressively hardy. While the ground conditions were much more challenging in Bristol than the Highlands (mud-wise), the robust tyre held up well on chunky Scottish gravel. There have been no punctures to deal with across three months of winter riding, and the tread shows little sign of premature wear.

As with the sluggishness, weight remains another compromise with the Cinturato Gravel S. With excellent protection and grip comes a heavier overall feel, and riders chasing fast speeds should look elsewhere. But ultimately these tyres deliver exactly what they promise: confidence-inspiring grip and control in poor conditions. If you’re looking for something to see you through the winter mud, the Gravel S turns what might otherwise be a tentative ride into something far more enjoyable.

Value

At roughly the same price as similarly knobbly tyres like the Schwalbe G-One RX or WTB Resolute, the Pirelli Cinturato Gravel S sits squarely in the centre of the mud-focused gravel tyre bracket. Where it excels is its reliability. With three months of winter riding on the rubber, there were no punctures and no premature wearing. If you’ve ever tried to fix a puncture in low temps while you and your bike are caked in mud, you’ll know how important this durability is.

These are not the tyres for fast hardpack gravel or anything where you’ll spend too much of your ride on tarmac. There are far better options that roll faster, like the Pirelli Cinturato Gravel H, for example. If your winter riding means mud, unpredictable terrain and sloppy trails, the Gravel S offers a compelling balance of grip and control.

Verdict

The Pirelli Cinturato Gravel S is not a tyre for chasing speed, but that is also why it works so well. On tarmac, there’s no denying that it’s slow and sluggish. But point it towards some mud, and the story changes completely. The chunky knobs, sturdy casing and wide spacing of the tread result in excellent traction and a reassuring ride when things are unpredictable.

Throughout months of riding on clay-heavy trails, these tyres gave me a confidence boost that had me reaching for my gravel bike on the wettest of days. But as things dry out a little, I’m looking forward to putting something a little slicker back on.

Enve has launched the new G SES gravel wheelset lineup today, a trio of wheelsets where 'aerodynamics meet the realities of modern gravel', says the brand.

This release is centred around another product that's aimed at the sharp end of gravel racing, where things are only getting faster and more specific. These are wide, aero-focused wheels designed to be paired with modern, high-volume tyres to maximise aero efficiency. The wheels sit alongside the existing pro-level 'SES' Enve range, which launched last year.

The show stopper here is the range-topping G SES 6.7 Pro wheels, which feature a huge 35mm wide internal rim dimension. Until now, the 32mm wide Zipp 303 XPLR wheels had been the widest (internally) commercially available gravel wheels.

That's not counting the 45mm internal prototype wheels that custom bike builder Dangerholm showed last year.

Joining the 6.7 Pro wheels are the SES 4.5 and SES 4.5 Pro wheelsets, which feature a slightly more conservative 30mm internal rim width and some other slightly different specs.

We also caught a glimpse of these wheels pre-release at the Traka recently, and they did indeed look wide in real life.

We have the details here, and there are some wind-tunnel testing figures to review, including Enve's head-to-head testing results against the Zipp XPLR wheelset, spicy.

Wheelset prices kick off at $2,850 for the SES 4.5 wheelset, the 4.5 Pro and 6.7 Pro wheelsets both come in at $3,100.

Enve G SES 6.7 Pro

The SES 6.7 Pro wheels are the deepest and widest wheels in the range, and so naturally will be the most exciting for tech fans. Enve says this is the world's most aerodynamically efficient gravel wheel and says it made the wheels because it wanted to know how aero it could make a wheel by optimising the rim shape around the latest big gravel tyres, which are widely used now in gravel events.

To the specs, the 6.7 Pro wheels are 60 (F) and 67mm deep (R), and all three wheelsets in the range use front and rear specific rim depths.

The internal width is 35mm, which is very wide indeed, whilst externally they measure up at 42.6mm. The minimum recommended tyre size is 44mm, and the maximum is 52mm, with the wide rim features to maintain clear airflow with a larger volume tyre.

The rims are hookless, with the rim bead measuring up at 3.8mm. The wheels use 24 spokes front and rear and are built with alloy nipples.

Claimed weight is 1580 grams per pair, including tubeless tape and valves with a Shimano HG freehub body. Front wheel weight is listed at 735 grams and the rear 845 grams.

The 6.7 wheels are built around the Enve Innerdrive Pro hubset, featuring a 40-tooth ratchet and ceramic bearings. The hubs are 60 grams lighter than the Innerdrive hubs used on the other wheelsets, weighing a claimed 281 grams in total.

Enve has also included some testing data for the 6.7 Pro wheels, which I have included for you here. The brand says today's gravel riders are using tyres between 44 and 52 mm. Whilst that may not be everyone, that is the direction of travel in gravel competition. The idea here is to smooth the transition of air over the rim's sidewall when running tyres over 44mm in size.

Enve says the 6.7 Pro wheels provide an 8-watt saving at 32kph and a 25-watt saving at 45kph over the Enve AG25 baseline wheel, which is a 21mm deep, 25mm wide gravel all-rounder.

Tested with 40, 44, and 48mm Enve Hex gravel tyres across 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 12.5, 15 and 17.5 degree yaw angles, the Enve results point to the wheels offering, on average, a 3.5% reduction in drag at 32kph and a 3.3% reduction at 48kph compared to the Zipp XPLR wheelset.

The wheels were also tested with two tyres, the Rene Herse Snoqualmie Pass 44mm and Enve Hex 44mm, at two speeds, which points to the difference the tyres' tread can make to aero performance, something to think about depending on the course and speed you might be riding at. Though rolling resistance, grip and puncture resistance are all factors that need consideration in the real world, let's not forget.

Enve G SES 4.5 and 4.5 Pro wheels

That's the 6.7 wheels covered; the other two wheelsets in the range are the 4.5 and 4.5 Pro. Enve says the 6.7 wheels are only offered in its top spec, targeting competitive athletes.

Specs are similar overall, but the 4.5 wheelsets seem to offer more choice, and a 100-gram weight saving in the 4.5 Pro version.

The SES 4.5 Pro wheels have 49mm (F) and 55mm (R) deep rims but with a narrower 30mm internal rim size. They feature the same Pro Innerdrive hubs as the 6.7's, and have the same $3,100 price tag.

The key differences are the shallow rim depth and narrower internal size, which provide a 100-gram weight saving for an overall claimed weight of 1,480 grams.

The SES 4.5 wheels use the Premier Innerdrive hubset with stainless bearings and a 60-tooth ratchet ring, exactly the same rim dimensions as the 4.5 Pro wheels, and brass spoke nipples for durability, coming in at a claimed 1,565 grams and costing $2,850.

We have a set of the SES 6.7 wheels in for testing, and we will see how they perform in the real world soon.

The DT Swiss A 1800 Wheelset may be the brand's most budget offering in the A for Aero line-up, but the performance is not exactly budget. The wheels still feature the superb and bombproof DT Swiss ratchet hub system, for example. However the engagement is limited to 20˚, so accelerating from coasting can feel minutely delayed.

Aero performance is the name of the game with these rims, as it is with all of the best road bike wheels on the market nowadays, and they are not bad. The widths are narrow by today’s standards, but they still roll well across flat and minimally rolling terrain.

The downside of these wheels is the weight. They are no featherweight, but in the rain they have a bad habit of holding water in the rim which makes them even more cumbersome. This can also result in some puddles when you get home.

However for the cost, the performance is not at all bad, and in some ways belies the low price making them an impressive value set of wheels.

Design and specifications

Being the budget offering in DT Swiss’ aero line-up, the A 1800 utilises an aluminium rim, rather than the carbon used in the high performing ARC Dicut 1400 models and up. It is still tubeless, but uses hooked rims, or ‘crotchet tubeless’ as this is called. The rim itself is only available in this 30mm depth, whereas higher end models in this range come with different depth offerings. The rim has a 19.9mm internal width, and 24.75mm external. DT Swiss states that it is designed to be used with the 26mm Continental Aero 111 front tyre and 28mm GP5000 S TR rear for the WTS (Wheel Tyre System) and maximum aero optimisation.

Moving down from the rim, the wheels use DT Aero comp wide straightpull spokes. These are arranged in a 2-cross pattern with 24 front and rear in a 1:1 ratio split. Essentially, 12 spokes either side.

The hub is the lowest spec offering DT Swiss offers of its Ratchet technology. Now the patent has expired, many other wheel brands have moved to this freehub design, due to the lower number of moving parts, enhanced serviceability, and reliability. Some brands have been a bit innovative with how they’ve made this design, but the DT Swiss version remains the standard bearer. This specific hub is the 370 with Ratchet LN 18. This is not as lightweight, features two springs and floating ratchets, and steel rather than ceramic bearings, compared to the DT Swiss 240 and 180 hubs which use the higher end and lighter EXP variation of the ratchet technology with a single spring and a fixed ratchet.

The 370 hubs here use the LN technology which is actually an aftermarket adjustment from standard pawls and bearings to the Ratchet tech, and the lowest tier offering from DT Swiss. The ratchet itself is 18 tooth, so 20 degrees of engagement rather than the standard 10 degrees on the 36 tooth option on the 350 hubs and above. However the Ratchet LN tech does not allow for switching out to a higher tooth system.

The wheels are supplied with tubeless valves, although I was only supplied with one for some reason, and pre-installed tubeless tape. A Shimano or SRAM XDR hub can be specified upon point of purchase.

Performance

As with all test tyres, the first job is setup, and just how easy or difficult that proves to be. With what is a rather conservative internal width of 20mm, it was very easy to fit the Pirelli Cinturato Velo 28mm tyres to the DT Swiss A 1800 rims. The wheels came pre-taped, and the valve was easy to fit and get secure. Strangely only one valve was supplied, plus no rotor lock rings, so I had to use some spares. Tyres were fitted without the need for grippy gloves or levers, and inflated well without too much sealant and just a track pump.

The tyres do certainly sit quite wide, but in line with the fact these tyres always come up significantly wider than advertised; 30.67mm to be exact.

Given that I’ve logged a lot of hours on these tires across different wheels, I have a fairly good idea about what performance differences a change in wheels results in. Over the winter I have used these Pirelli tyres across a range of wheels, from mid-range carbon wheels, to proper budget offerings that cost as much as some sets of tyres.

My initial impressions of the A 1800 were that of pretty reasonable acceleration on the flats. This is likely due to the spoke lacing pattern being one that gives a good level of stiffness and responsiveness when it comes to torsional forces when accelerating or braking. 24 spokes with a two-cross lacing is a solid combination and DT Swiss alloy spokes have always done well with balancing stiffness. The straight pull design also helps them feel very stable in the corners, with no discernible flex in the wheels.

The aero profiling of the wheels also likely helps with a fairly solid fast rolling sensation up to around 35kph. After this, the lack of depth does become noticeable compared to deeper section wheels. But the trade-off with deeper section alloy wheels is a significant increase in weight.

Weight, unfortunately, is an area where these wheels do struggle. Both for an obvious reason, and one less obvious one. Firstly, 1810g is not light for a wheelset, especially a performance one. These are more budget friendly offerings, but they are still heavy. This is most perceptible on inclines, anything beyond 3-4% gradient becomes a tangible slog to accelerate these wheels. Admittedly, they are not a wheelset that is necessarily aimed at racing, more a solid set to get you around. In that regard, they do very well, and I am judging them against more premium offerings.

However, there is a slight flaw that can make them even heavier than the cheapest wheels I use for winter training, the bog standard Shimano RS line. When riding in the rain, the DT Swiss A 1800 has a bad habit of getting water into the rim, which then is not that easily removed. I noticed this when getting back, hanging the bike up, and hearing water sloshing in the rim when spinning the wheel. I noticed it again when I realised there was a puddle under the bike when the hole that can let the water out found its way to the bottom of the wheel in the stand. It was a significant amount of water that has found its way into the rim, and this in turn adds a good amount of rotational weight. This is likely why, during wet rides, I found these wheels to be even more arduous to accelerate up inclines than the 2kg Shimano RS wheelset. You can drain the wheels, but you don’t want to have to do that while riding out in the rain ideally.

Another element that is noticeable is the reduced number of teeth in the ratchet hub leading to slightly delayed acceleration perceptions. A 20˚ engagement rate is not massive in the scheme of things, but it was noticeable all the same. When riding at a constant speed with pressure applied to the pedals it has no impact. The rest of the hub performs superbly, and after around 1500km of using these across a fairly bleak 2026 January and February, the hub is in great condition with the bearings front and rear running smoothly. I’m a big fan of the DT Swiss Ratchet hubs, as is every other wheel brand as they adopted the technology as soon as the patent ran out. It’s simple, easier to maintain, and easier to replace parts if needed. It really boosts these wheels’ performance as a solid wheel to get you through most rides.

Value

I have bemoaned these wheels for the overall weight and lack of higher speed aero performance, but that is compared to wheelsets that start at around £1000/$1200. For just £409.99/$592 the DT Swiss A 1800 are a wheelset that has enough performance to not detract from riding (the Shimano RS wheels are what I would call get-round wheels and are not fun), but also rugged enough to be a bit more use-and-forget than something more race focussed.

I’ve spent a lot of time riding the Shimano 105 wheelset, it’s lighter, more responsive, but more expensive. I’ve also had to replace the bearings more frequently as poor weather eats away at the internals. That is where the DT Swiss wheels perform very well, I never feel I have to worry about any components of them struggling after being used in heavy rain, through flooded roads, or through salt and grit laden snow slush.

There are cheaper wheels, but frankly they feel cheaper, and are either not as fun to ride or will need more maintenance in the foul weather they are likely to be used. I would like the DT Swiss A 1800 to not store water the way they do, and for faster paced rides the aero performance is limited, but for just riding, and not racing or doing rapid accelerations, they do a very good job. They are your classic bomb-proof training wheels that can cope with the winter without being expensive enough that you’ll be worried about them. Paired with the longevity that you won’t need to replace them after a foul winter.

Verdict

I like the DT Swiss A 1800 wheelset. It does a very good job and exceeds in the price bracket that it occupies. It is, of course, not as spritely as lighter sets of wheels, or as fast as deeper options, but it also costs significantly less and has impressive resilience against foul weather.

My only genuine gripe is the fact the rim holds water, adding to the weight and leaking at times around the house/shed. A 20mm internal width and slowish hub engagement don’t really make a big difference, and for riding at 20-35kph the wheels do well. At higher speeds or in competitive events I would want more from them, but that’s where I’d get a higher end set of race wheels. For training, riding worry-free, and not spending heaps on a do-it-all set of training wheels, these are exceptionally good.

The Schwalbe G-One RX is Schwalbe’s newest tyre for off-road riding where grip is key. Positioned as the most aggressive option in the new G-One R range, the RX is designed for riders after the best gravel bike tyres, but prioritising grip over outright speed. It takes over from the G-One Ultrabite in Schwalbe full gravel lineup. The old Ultrabite was a tyre I used on my gravel bike for almost 12 months a couple of years ago (replacing them with something a little more slick for a mostly on-road tour at the start of summer) so I was looking forward to seeing how they compared given the quite significantly different tread pattern it has gone with for the new range.

I was testing the 45mm version, and the initial rides I took these tyres on were a bit of a mud bath. The very first time I took them out I decided to head to some familiar tracks and trails, only to discover there’d been some forestry work going on in the woods, and combined with some significant recent rain, conditions were prime to give them their first proper test and see if they stood up to the ‘maximum grip and excellent self-cleaning properties in muddy conditions’ claims from their manufacturer.

While the tread pattern won’t look that familiar to G-One Ultrabite fans, it shares characteristics with both Schwalbe’s less aggressive gravel tyre, the G-One R, and its race-proven cyclocross tyre the X-One R with the aim of offering reduced rolling resistance while maintaining the utmost grip through muddy corners and on steep climbs.

It’s not just the tread pattern that’s different for this tyre, though; all tyres that are part of the recent G-One R line feature a newly developed carcass construction and widened belt of puncture protection for increased resistance to cuts, tears, and punctures on the trail. Combined with improved rolling resistance thanks to the arrangement of the individual plies and faster Addix Race rubber compound, Schwalbe claims improved puncture protection for the same weight.

Design and Aesthetics

The Schwalbe G-One RX is the third member of Schwalbe’s G-One R line, designed for especially rocky and muddy terrain where “enormous amounts of grip are required”. The G-One R is the all-purpose tyre, while the G-One RS is the semi-slick option for hardpack and fast terrain.

Schwalbe describe the G-One RX tyre as the “Race Grip” tyre within the G-One R line, using the all new Race carcass from their development team. The Race carcass consists of two carcass layers and RaceGuard to protect the tread, with three carcass layers protecting the sidewalls. Schwalbe says that the new arrangement of the layers reduces rolling resistance, while the RaceGuard puncture protection (consisting of two nylon layers) sits under the tread to keep flats at bay.

The tread itself is made of Schwalbe’s ADDIX Green Rubber compound, consisting of Fairtrade natural rubber and recycled carbon black which comes from the brand’s own tire recycling facilities. It claims this offers outstanding performance and durability while also raising the bar for environmental friendliness with up to 80% renewable and recycled materials. While these are interesting claims, I struggled to find any clear information about exactly how much of the ‘up to 80%’ of the tyre’s materials truly were renewable or recycled.

Aesthetically, the tyre has a simple design. They’re only available in the one colour, black, and the printed details on the sidewall feel clean and modern. With the Schwalbe swallow at one end of the sidewall (symbolising freedom, joy of discovery and optimism) and the full Schwalbe logo and tyre width information at the opposite end, both in clean white, the G-One RX unlikely to clash with or take away from any other details on your gravel bike, in case that’s something you’re worried about.

The central ‘boomerang’ tread pattern is shared with its slightly less aggressive cousin the G-One R and aims to improve rolling resistance and offer grip on even the steepest of climbs. Transitioning to the outside of the tyre, paired blocks, borrowed from Schwalbe’s cyclocross tyre the X-One R, are designed to offer maximum grip in the corners.

The shift to wider tyres in the gravel scene is catered for by Schwalbe’s new range, and the G-One RX is available in 40mm, 45mm, and 50mm versions. While the RX tyres won’t be suitable for riders with limited clearance, if you’re looking for a narrower tyre then both the R and RS from the range are both available in 35mm.

With a claimed weight of 595g for the 45mm version, they’re not the lightest on the market but are within 20-30g of their main competitors and should be ~15g lighter per tyre than their predecessor, the G-One Ultrabite. If lighter weight is important to you, the PRO version should be around 25g less, although they didn’t feel unreasonably heavy on test.

Performance

Thanks to the weeks of rain we’d had before I fitted the G-One RX tyres to test them, conditions were perfect for testing Schwalbe’s claims that they “focus on the best possible off-road performance with more grip in difficult conditions”. Luckily, it started to dry up (a bit) before too long, so I was able to see how they felt on drier loose gravel and hardpack too. Also, because I wasn’t keen on swapping my wheels out every other day, we took on our fair share of road miles together too.

Fitting the 45mm tyres to my DT Swiss GR531 rims gave me absolutely no issues at all. They went on with ease and the help of a single tyre lever, and once I’d made sure the bead was sitting comfortably either side of the valve, I simply inflated them using my trusty track pump. The bead remained seated when I then delated them in order to take out the valve core and add in some sealant and so I felt reassured they’d be easy to re-inflate without a super high pressure pump on the trails if I ended up with any big cuts that needed plugging.

My first ride with these tyres ended up being unexpectedly challenging, as I discovered that the usually smooth but slightly sloppy forest tracks I wanted to test them on had been churned up by a horde of forestry vehicles the previous week. Schwalbe does claim that the tyres offer “enormous grip in challenging conditions”, however, so it felt like the perfect opportunity to put that to the test. And I’m pleased to say, after some mild tentativeness in the first few sections, the G-One RX really did live up to Schwalbe’s word.

Climbing felt comfortable both in and out of the saddle on muddy and rocky terrain, as the arrow shaped centre tread dug into the surface below. I wasn’t conscious of loss of traction on the back tyre and grip felt consistent regardless of torque and power output. The G-One RX felt noticeably draggy when trying to push and accelerate on climbs, but in the tough muddy conditions, the trade-off felt entirely worth it.

On the corners, the paired outer blocks really came into their own. They were hugely confidence inspiring in the pretty tough conditions I was testing them in and I felt able to push into corners on trails I know well, but might otherwise have backed off on given the vast amounts of mud. On its predecessor I felt conscious that the shoulders offered little traction when trying to accelerate and forward momentum relied more on the center tread, but the alternated horizontal and vertical blocks on the G-One RX feel like a great way to ensure grip in both directions.

Hardpack gravel and road riding is not what this tyre is made for, and this was obvious during the testing period. They didn’t feel like the most supple and had a noticeable amount of drag on the flat, with leg-zapping qualities when it came to any inclines. This is definitely worth noting if you’re someone who regularly rides your gravel bike both on and off road, as lots of us are.

Durability wasn’t an issue within the testing period. The RaceGuard puncture protection and Race carcass seem to do their job at keeping the flats at bay despite quite a significant amount of trail debris and even a few rolls through scattered patches of broken glass in the city on the way to the trails.

In summary, the Schwalbe G-One RX feels like a good, reliable tyre for gravel riding in challenging conditions, just as Schwalbe claims, but they don’t feel like the most versatile tyre for more mixed terrain.

Value

At £49.99 per tyre ($69), the Schwalbe G-One RX sits comfortably in the mid-range for gravel tyres in 2026. Reliable under testing, confidence inspiring upon technical terrain, and easy to set up, they feel like a great option for someone looking to take the step into riding in more challenging conditions, or wanting to tackle their local gravel trails whatever the weather.

They come in slightly cheaper than Panaracer’s Gravelking EKT and Vittoria’s T90 Gravel Tyre, while sitting just above the price point of the Hutchinson Tundra, so they feel like reasonable value for money in a busy mid-range market.

If you have the cash to splash, you could consider looking at the Schwalbe G-One RX PRO version, which cost approximately £25 more per tyre but will give you access to all of Schwalbe’s latest and greatest technology while giving you access to the confidence inspiring tread pattern of the standard G-One RX, perfect for a technical race, or if you’re someone wanting to get the most grip without compromising on speed.

Verdict

Ultimately, if you’re looking for an all-round tyre for year-round gravel riding then the Schwalbe G-One RX tyres aren’t going to be the best option for you. They’re best suited to riders tackling wet, technical gravel or UK winter conditions and less ideal if you’re looking for speed or mixed terrain riding.

If you’re looking for confidence and traction in challenging conditions at an affordable price point, then you probably can’t go wrong looking in the direction of the G-One RX.

I really trusted them in some of the most soggy conditions and one the most churned up tracks I’ve come across since I’ve been riding gravel, and that made for some really fun days out where I could focus on just enjoying the ride.

Schwalbe’s sustainability claims are promising, but the ‘up to’ figures lack the transparency really needed to properly assess them. If that’s a key consideration for you it’s worth digging a little deeper or looking at alternative options.

Otherwise they perform well, look clean and I’d happily recommend them to a friend.

At the start of Paris-Roubaix this year, my colleague Will Jones spotted a Newmen 'Streem S.66' wheel on Team TotalEnergies' Cube bikes and included it in our Paris-Roubaix men's tech gallery.

The wheel in question was part of a wheelset which uses a 66mm deep rear wheel, and a 60mm front.

On paper, a wheel of that depth would, as of January 1st this year, fall foul of the controversial UCI rim depth rule that limits wheels to a maximum of 65mm. The team confirmed that the wheels were, as the label suggests, 66mm deep, but assured that they were still UCI-legal.

We followed it up post-Roubaix to see how the team could legally use a wheel that's over the stipulated limit, and found that the UCI rule allows a 1mm tolerance to account for the "thickness of surface coatings (paint and sponsors’ logos)."

This, combined with being within the UCI overall wheel diameter guidelines, means the wheels are ok to use in competition.

Despite this, a Newmen spokesperson has spoken out against the rule, calling it "Totally stupid."

The brand explained to Cyclingnews that the UCI approval was more about accounting for manufacturing tolerances, which it believed had not been considered, than finding some kind of 1mm depth gain for an aero advantage in a racing situation, which would probably be negligible.

What does the UCI rule say?

In the Clarification guide of the UCI technical regulation, on maximum rim depth, Article 1.3.018 states:

'The maximum height of the rim does not measure more than 65 mm (measured as the perpendicular distance from the tangential line passing through any point of the outer extremity of the rim to the inner extremity of the rim)'

Slightly further down the page, the 1mm tolerance mention can be found.

'A tolerance of one millimetre is allowed for the elements to account for the thickness of surface coatings (paint and sponsors’ logos). No tolerance is allowed when inspecting technical designs.'

On top of this, the UCI also stipulates an overall wheel diameter rule, which says:

"Wheels of the bicycle may vary in diameter between 700 mm maximum and 550 mm minimum, including the tyre."

A 700c road wheel has a diameter of 622mm, leaving 78mm of wiggle room regarding tyre sizing choice. This creates a de facto limit on tyre size, too, which works out at approximately 38mm wide, albeit depending on the rim's internal width and the tyre's construction.

"Totally stupid"

Speaking exclusively to Cyclingnews, a spokesperson for Newmen explained that he believed the UCI had not taken into account manufacturing tolerances when it announced the rim depth rules.

Tolerances are present in all manufacturing, and he explained that when manufacturing around 400,000 wheelsets per year, as Newmen does, with many being OEM pre-orders, the wear of the carbon mould needs to be accounted for. Not every '65mm deep' rim coming out of a mould will be exactly 65mm deep.

He explained that Newmen had actually altered its manufacturing tooling to account for the new rule, but made the point that not all brands may have the funds to do the same.

"We had our rim tooling reworked so that our rims, after painting, are not more than 66mm. With this height, we follow the UCI rules, and we got the official confirmation."

However, he then continued to offer the company's stance on the broader implementation of the rule.

While the UCI rim depth rule is in place to slow riders down and increase safety, teams still have a range of choices when it comes to tyre sizes, which also affect aerodynamics and thus speed as part of an overall wheel system.

"Independent of this, this 65mm rule is totally stupid," he continued. "The wheel is a system of rim and tyre. The wheel should be viewed as a whole. Some teams use 28mm tyres, some 32mm tyres. The rim, together with the tyre, is important, not only the rim. Anyone who deals with aerodynamics knows this, and the whole [wheel] would also be much easier to check."

British wheel brand Parcours has launched a new, high-end road wheelset today named the Strade GT, which boasts some interesting claims around vibrational loss-saving technology. The brand says this is a wheelset for riders wanting 'aero efficiency, stability, and long distance comfort in a single system.'

This news comes well-timed, in the run-up to Paris-Roubaix, as comfort over rough surfaces and the tech that helps it is dominating our thoughts here in the Cyclingnews tech team.

Whilst these aren't wheels designed to help anyone over the Hell of the North's brutal stones, they do have some interesting claims around lowering vibrational losses and fatigue and helping riders stay fresher for longer.

The headline claim here from Parcours is that the Strade GT wheels' vibration-damping tech, which we get into below, is equivalent to reducing tyre pressure by approximately 10-15psi, which, at face value, is quite the claim.

The new tech is the focus here, but spec-wise, the wheels appear to tick a lot of boxes for the best road bike wheels. Like so many high-end wheels of late, they make use of carbon fibre spokes from Alpina, resulting in a claimed 1130-gram weight for the hooked 49/54mm deep rims, which the brand says are optimised around 30mm tyres, in part thanks to the 23.5mm internal rim. The wheels are also said to be more aerodynamic than the current Parcours Strade wheel, to the tune of 3.2 watts at 48km/h.

Strade GT wheels will cost £2,499 / US$3,299 / €3,199 for the steel bearing-equipped option and rise to £2,719 / US$3,589 / €3,489 if you want ceramic bearings.

Parcours has used a new trademarked technology named Vibracore in the Strade GT wheels, which makes use of reclaimed Aligned Formable Fibre Technology (AFFT) from Welsh brand Lineat, in conjunction with Nottingham Trent University. Interestingly, the brand has to ship this material to its factory in the Far East for it to be incorporated into its wheels.

I spoke with Parcours on the project, and was told a greener wheelset was the initial goal with the Strade GT wheels, but the brand told me that the smoother ride quality the recycled carbon fibre material gave the wheels jumped out early on.

The recycled AFFT material is said to allow a 'different interaction within the laminate' and influences how energy is transferred between layers.

The recycled material is integrated into the spoke bed of the rims, which the brand claims helps reduce vibration at a structural level. This material helps deaden road vibration at the rim, creating a smoother ride and reducing what we tend to think of as 'road buzz', which should ultimately help keep us feeling fresher and less fatigued.

It's understandable for claims like this to raise eyebrows, especially now that large-volume tyres and low pressures can do so much to boost comfort. Is this tech needed?

Parcours says it has done two years of testing to prove and develop the technology and even provided a lengthy white paper on its findings and test protocols. I haven't included everything here, but I hope to test a pair of wheels for myself soon to really see what they are all about in the real world and compare my findings to the Parcours test results.

Parcours says it worked with the Sports Engineering Department at Nottingham Trent University on its testing. The brand used multi-axis vibration sensors on a bike stem and at the rear of the top tube. Five test riders weighing between 55 and 105kg rode different frames with 28 and 30mm Vittoria Corsa Pro tyres at 40,60 and 80 PSI across two test wheelsets, one with Vibracore and one without, across a range of surfaces over multiple runs.

The results showed reductions in RMS (root mean square) vibrational energy at Hertz ranges in line with what we typically feel as 'road buzz' on the bike. And at 60PSI, the brand says the reduction is in line with a 10-15 PSI reduction in tyre pressure without any of the potential disadvantages of this.

This is a top-line overview of the brand's testing, which, as mentioned, I will dig into more soon. This new technology is interesting for tech fans at the very least, and if Vibracore delivers could be a way of staying fresher for longer on the bike.

As I fit these tires to my gravel wheels during a torrential rainstorm I thought they’d be in for some tough testing conditions, and also that their light tan rubber lugs and sidewalls were about to be drowned in a deluge of mud. And I was right. While Vittoria says they’re built to race in the ‘toughest mixed conditions’ I was keen to see how they would cope with deeper, claggier mud that might sit just beyond their intended remit.

The Terreno T60 PRO Mixed Gravel Race tyre is the most capable in its new Terreno PRO Gravel range, aimed at mixed surface riding. They’re built to handle demanding conditions, while also placing a strong emphasis on sustainability. Built with 92% renewable and recycled materials (which give it its distinctive natural brown colour) it’s the most environmentally conscious tyre Vittoria has ever created.

The tread uses a tightly packed, V-shaped formation intended to inspire confidence in cornering and maintain predictable handling across varied terrain. On mixed gravel surfaces, the tyre performed consistently well, offering dependable grip without feeling draggy on firmer ground.

Vittoria claims that the T60 PRO is 7% faster, 9% grippier, and 34% more puncture resistant compared to the average competitor, figures that on test, don’t feel unrealistic. From smooth tarmac to muddy trails and everything in between, acceleration was sharp, braking felt controlled, and cornering grip remained reassuring. But how do they stack up to our assessment of the best gravel tyres on the market?

Design and Aesthetics

Sustainability is at the forefront of the T60’s design,with the tyre constructed from 92% renewable and recycled materials. The Terreno T60 PRO Mixed Gravel Race tyre uses Vittoria’s Eco Race casing, a multi-layer organic cotton construction reinforced with natural latex, plus sidewall protection and an anti-puncture belt made from recycled nylon derived from discarded fishing nets. The impossible to miss natural brown ‘Eco Race’ rubber compound is also a sustainably developed compound, containing natural rubber, soybean oil, and rice husk ash silica.

Aesthetically, it’s a tyre that could divide opinion. The absence of carbon black gives it its distinctive natural brown look, and because of the natural ingredients the shade can vary slightly from tyre to tyre, although this didn’t appear to be the case with the pair I had on test. The look is certainly different from the norm, so while I would imagine that it won’t be to everyone’s taste, I think they look great. There’s something quite refreshing about its unique look in a sea of otherwise predominantly black competitors.

Within Vittoria’s gravel terrain score system, the T60 PRO sits in the middle overall, but it’s the most aggressive option in the Gravel Race line. The range begins with the T10 for hardpack, progressing through the T30 for fine loose gravel and the T50 for light mixed terrain, before topping out with the T60 for the toughest mixed gravel conditions.

The tightly packed, V-shaped tread pattern features progressively angled siping designed to promote fast rolling on hardpack while maintaining grip under acceleration, braking and cornering in looser terrain. Vittoria says the tread should deliver the perfect harmony between speed, control, and versatility. On test, that balance feels well judged.

Available in 35mm, 40mm and 45mm widths, the T60 PRO range offers a good selection of options, but feels limited at the top end with no options for the most modern gravel bikes. It’s worth noting that currently, Vittoria only has 4 gravel tyres (from its endurance range) in 50mm or larger sizes, but we may see it introduce more as the wider size becomes more common. As their colour is owed to their construction, there’s only the one option, which takes care of one decision for you.

At 670g for the 45mm version and 550g for the 35mm, they sit toward the heavier end of the gravel race tyre market. Their weight makes them over 150g heavier than Vittoria’s T60 Gravel Endurance model from its separate endurance focused range, which is closer to the 500g, as is more typical of a 45mm gravel tyre. Though the heavier than average construction did little to noticeably impact their pace on terrain I was testing them on, dedicated gravel weight weenies may want to look elsewhere.

Performance

Testing the tyres in what has probably been the wettest winter period in living memory certainly provided some challenging conditions for them to live up to their billing as the most capable tyre in the Terreno Pro range. Week after week of rain meant waterlogged bridleways, greasy gravel climbs and long stretches of standing water in the middle of the two; hardly textbook mixed gravel conditions. Fortunately, I was also able to head out on a handful of less sodden routes to see how they performed on loose gravel, hardpack and slightly chunkier terrain. These are sort of surfaces they’re actually designed to really excel on, and those you’re more likely to encounter on a typical British gravel ride or race.

When it came to fitting, I had no issues mounting the Terreno T60 tyres onto my DT Swiss GR531 rims. With the help of a single tyre lever, they slipped into place without too much persuasion, and they seated and inflated with ease using a standard track pump, with valve core left in. Once inflated, the bead felt secure and I had no worries about them burping at lower pressures. At the same time, they didn’t feel so tight that getting them off would destroy my thumbs if I did end up needing to fit a tube at the trailside.

My puncture fixing/reseating confidence wasn’t put to the test at any point, though. Despite coming across a fair few lanes just after hedge cutting – littered with thorns and debris – and tackling a number of rocky bridleways, I didn’t see a hint of sealant leakage at any point. For a tyre positioned firmly in the “race” end of the gravel spectrum, durability feels reassuringly robust.

Given the conditions, much of my early riding was in mud that went well beyond the tyre’s intended remit. It doesn’t have the tall, widely spaced knobs of a dedicated mud tyre, so there was some clogging in deeper, stickier mud, but grip remained surprisingly predictable and total loss of traction was rare.

I was cautious into the first few corners, the smooth speed of the tyres noticeable but the knobs not offering a huge amount of feedback. Once I was more confident, however, the grip felt consistent from the centre tread to the shoulder knobs thanks to the even and relatively tightly packed spacing.

On greasy climbs and corners there was the occasional slip (before quickly gripping back up again) but the capability of the T60 PRO across all other conditions might just be worth trading complete confidence for.

On the mixed gravel terrain this tyre is designed specifically for it really comes into its own. It feels comfortable and efficient, providing bags of confidence and control with little of the draggy sensation you sometimes get from more capable gravel tyres on firmer ground.

This was notable on the road, too. The buzzing noise from the tarmac was quieter than expected and acceleration didn’t feel too cumbersome, even at the lower pressures I was running to compensate for the tricker off-road conditions.

Adding a little more pressure for out and out road rides increased this performance even more, and I was grateful for the extra protection on some seriously potholed and debris strewn winter lanes. I’d probably opt for a slightly narrower version than the 45mm tyres I tested so I could still fit mud guards if I was planning to use them regularly on the road, but I didn’t feel too held back compared to my pals on slicker, narrower road bike tyres given the aggressive tread in comparison to other, more all round gravel tyres I’ve used on the road in the past.

In terms of ride feel, the 45mm casing offers a good blend of cushioning and responsiveness. Run at sensible pressures there’s a good amount of vibration damping over bumpy ground, without feeling overly soft or slow.

Ultimately, if you’re riding regularly in deep mud, there are more specialist options available. But for riders looking for speed while tackling a genuine mix of tarmac, hardpack, loose gravel and the occasional muddy interlude, the T60 PRO strikes an impressively versatile balance.

Value

At £85 rrp, the Vittoria Terreno Pro T60 Gravel Race tyre sits at the top end of the gravel tyre market, but the exceptional ride feel and unique sustainability criteria help them to stand out amongst competition and if you’re after a high end gravel tyre, they feel like good value for money.

If you’re looking for something on the more affordable end, Vittoria’s T60 mixed Gravel Endurance offers an identical tread pattern at a slightly more affordable price point, however you’ll lose the additional sustainability credentials and some performance edge. Given the choice I’d opt for the PRO version, but given the lower price point, the T60 Gravel Endurance is likely to offer similarly good value for money.

Competition from outside Vittoria’s range comes from the Schwalbe G-One RX at just £50, WTB Raddler at £55, but you’ll need to compromise on use of less environmentally friendly materials, with these tyres being more comparable to the aforementioned T60 Mixed Gravel Endurance section of the market.

Verdict

The Vittoria T60 PRO Gravel Race tyre stands out amongst an ever growing market, and not just because of its unique look and low-carbon composition. Even if I wasn’t a fan of their natural brown look, their exceptional performance across the range of challenging conditions I tested them in would be undeniable.

I found the negatives of these tyres few and far between. The setup was easy, they were reliable throughout the testing period with no leakage or punctures, and they delivered on Vittoria’s promise of a great balance between speed and control you need from a gravel race tyre.

With a 35% reduction in carbon footprint and 92% renewable and recycled materials, the sustainability element feels like a big plus. The calibre of the tyre you get feels like proof that there’s so much potential in that area for the industry to explore without needing to compromise on performance.

The cost may be prohibitive for some, but if your budget can stretch then the Vittoria T60 PRO Gravel Race tyre offers serious performance across all terrains in a large range of width options to suit most gravel bikes and riders.

Specialized has upgraded it's gravel specific wheel range today with the launch of two new additions to the Terra wheel family.

The new Terra Aero CLX and Terra CLX III wheelsets are 'the fastest gravel wheel family ever built'. This update somewhat mirrors the overhaul of the Rapide road range, which came in late June last year.

The first of this new pair of wheels is the Terra Aero CLX, a new addition for the Terra range and a wheelset that the brand says prioritises gravel-specific aerodynamic performance and speed. The Terra Aero is going to be the showstopper on gravel race bikes in the future, in part thanks to its distinctive, wide, squared-off front rim profile, which we get into below.

The Terra CLX III is a lighter (very light in fact, but we'll get to that) and shallower wheelset that features similar rim width specs and tech to the Terra Aero, but is geared towards climbers and blending low weight with comfort and capability.

The storyline involving high-end gravel racing only getting faster and more competitive has influenced the design of these wheels. Roval says 'gravel racing now demands the same level of aero discipline historically reserved for WorldTour races'. It seems this is another development in the ongoing quest for off-road speed.

The Terra Aero CLX

The carbon fibre Terra Aero CLX wheels come with an aero claim from Roval: The wheels are claimed to be 5.84 watts faster than the Terra CLX wheels with a 45mm Tracer gravel tyre at 40kph, and it reads like the wheels have been optimised around the Specialized Tracer gravel tyres in general.

We don't have in-depth data or testing info to support this claim, but Roval has talked about its design and testing procedure at some length.

The front wheel rim is 50mm deep and the rear 45mm. They are designed for 35-60mm tyres and feature a hooked rim with bead hook widths of 5.38mm to help minimise pinch punctures.

Roval has also added carbon-bladed spokes by Arris, which it claims save 0.3-0.5 watts, the same as those found on the latest Rapide wheelsets, which save a claimed 96.6 grams. Despite the carbon spokes, there's a claimed 21.52% reduction in lateral stiffness for improved control in the rough stuff.

We have the topline dimensions and stats, but the shape of the Terra Aero is the key talking point, it's flat front rim shape is going to draw attention.

The Aero CLX uses a flat 'truncated aerofoil' rim shape; in essence, the part of the rim closest to the wheel's hub is flat and squared off. Roval is calling this a 'chopped aero speed shape' and says it tests like a 70mm front wheel, which I assume means it tests like a faster wheel.

Roval chose from over 300 digital rim shapes and used gravel-specific 'whole system' CFD testing that included the wheel and tyre in a Specialized Crux frame, plus wind tunnel testing to arrive at the final product.

The brand says the rim and Tracer gravel tyres work in tandem to smooth the airflow coming off the taller gravel tyre and make it fast. It doesn't mention the wheel's performance with any other gravel tyres, and tyre selection is a key choice for gravel racers.

We assume performance drops slightly with a different tyre or size, but it seems safe to say this is at least another competitor to the race-focused Zipp 303 XPLR SW rims, which use the fast and wide theory as well.

The Terra CLX III

The new Terra Speed CLX III wheels weigh in at a claimed 1079 grams including valves and tape, which really is pretty impressive, and is a saving of at least a couple of hundred grams over the CLX II models. Roval says these wheels are for a blend of low weight and off-road comfort.

They feature a 27mm rim depth, and the same internal width as the Aero CLX, but they are 0.5mm narrower externally at 38mm.

These numbers make them shallower, yet wider internally and externally than the outgoing CLX II version. They have also received the carbon spoke treatment, which drops weight and boosts aero by a small amount.

Roval claims a 21.52% improvement in lateral compliance for comfort in harsh terrain, and the hooked bead is 4.86 mm wide.

There aren't any aero claims to pair with the Terra CLXIII's, but Roval claims it chose from 200 rim shapes through 'multi-factor modelling' to arrive at the new shape.

Gravel race equipment is evolving all the time, and we will see these wheels, in particular the Terra Aero, in use at the Traka and Unbound Gravel in just a few short months.

Pirelli has launched the brand new P Zero Race SL-R tyre today, which it claims is the ultimate road racing tyre, offering best-in-class aerodynamics, along with low rolling resistance, grip, handling and comfort.

Along with these big claims, the brand claims a 2-watt normalised aero gain at 45km/h has been achieved relative to its P Zero Race RS - the brand's current flagship road tyre.

The eagle-eyed out there may have spotted pro riders racing on Pirelli tyres marked 'Prototype' for quite a while now, and it appears the time is now right for Pirelli to officially reveal what these new tyres are.

Pirelli has focused on the performance and aerodynamic drag of the wheel and tyre system overall. We recently caught up with Pirelli product manager Carlo Di Clemente to learn more.

Di Clemente says that, although 80% of the drag when riding comes from the rider, of the residual 20%, up to 5% can come from the front wheel and tyre. This is increased by the trend to wider tyres on wide rims, which increases the frontal aero presented to the wind.

It appears Pirelli has focused on this and sought to reduce flow separation at the interface between the front tyre and wheel rim and maximise the sailing effect to improve aerodynamic performance.

The development of the P Zero Race SL-R drew on Pirelli’s expertise in aerodynamics and CFD simulation and used tools from Pirelli’s MotoGP and F1 divisions in an 18-month development programme.

Over 14 iterations, analysis included a range of proprietary techniques such as unsteady flow simulations borrowed from Pirelli’s other divisions.

Pirelli also took the tyres to four different wind tunnels over eight testing sessions. Di Clemente says that although the results for different wind tunnels weren’t precisely the same, they were consistent.

Patented PAAS technology

Previously, brands have made tyres more aero by utilising features such as the vortex generators used in the Continental Aero 111 tyre and the new Cadex Aero tyre. Others, such as the previous generation Cadex aero tyre, have a narrow and tall section. Another option is to use a tyre that’s narrower than the rim to reduce frontal area, a design which can be observed on Roval Rapide front wheels.

Di Clemente claims that these approaches have their deficiencies. Vortex generators work better at high yaw angles but may increase drag at low yaw angles, while a pointy tyre can impact handling, and both can increase rolling resistance. Meanwhile, a narrower tyre has to be run at higher pressure, which can result in the by now well-known impacts on rolling resistance and comfort.

In contrast, the P Zero Race SL-R has a standard profile and a slick tread. Its aero performance instead comes from its patented PAAS technology. This adds rubber at the tyre’s side, increasing the tyre’s width in the space above the rim, helping to smooth the tyre-to-rim interface.

Signifying Pirelli Advanced Aerodynamic System, PAAS results from Pirelli’s research finding that there’s a specific positioning of the tyre’s widest point relative to the tyre’s height, when mounted on the rim, which provides optimal aerodynamic performance.

As such, the PAAS profile is tyre-width specific, although the effect is seen across a range of rim profiles and yaw angles, particularly at higher yaw. Pirelli says that PAAS continues to be effective even as the tyre tread wears.

It’s similar to how Trek tried to smooth the airflow between the tyre and rim with its Bontrager R4 320 tyre, which was launched over a decade ago. However, Di Clemente says that Pirelli’s approach still allows the tyre to be mounted and removed easily. Interestingly, he claims that the small groove around the edge of the tyre above the rim doesn’t affect the new tyre’s aerodynamics.

Pirelli found that the width of the PAAS layer needed to vary by tyre width, so the brand will be launching the P Zero Race SL-R in just 28mm and 30mm widths, with a larger 32mm size scheduled to follow in October. The 28mm tyre has a 275g claimed weight, 15g less than the P Zero Race RS, although we weighed a pair at 286g and 288g.

2 watts faster than the P Zero Race RS

As well as multiple wind tunnel runs, Pirelli tested its new tyre on four different rims, including hooked and hookless designs and popular models from Zipp and DT Swiss.

We asked for a little more information on the brand's wind tunnel testing procedures and learned that a 60mm deep, hooked wheel was tested, which had a 23mm internal width. 28mm tyres were tested at an airspeed of 45km/h.

Overall, the brand's wind tunnel testing shows a 2-watt aero gain in weighted average drag over the P Zero Race RS, normalised over yaw angles of up to 20 degrees at lower speeds. In a high wind test, this increased to 5 watts, due to a greater sailing effect at higher yaw angles.

At a high yaw angle of 15 to 20 degrees, Pirelli claims it found a huge 15-watt saving versus the P Zero Race RS 28mm tyre in a single measurement point. Di Clemente says that this is likely due to the absence of a tread pattern on the new tyre, as Pirelli found that adding a grooved tread, which the P Zero Race RS has, impacted aerodynamics.

The 15-watt figure is an edge case and peculiar to Pirelli’s tyres; the energy saving is less marked, but still significant, relative to competitors’ tyres it also tested at lower yaw angles. Overall, the key takeaway is roughly a 2-watt claimed saving over the previous Pirelli range topper; it's unrealistic to expect huge 15-odd-watt real-world savings just by switching tyres.

In its quest for aero optimisation, Pirelli has also reduced the font size of the embossed tyre info, which is mandated for all tyres, to the permitted minimum to avoid aerodynamic interference.

10% lower rolling resistance

Turning to rolling resistance, Pirelli uses the same Smart Evo 2 rubber compound in its P Zero Race SL-R, derived from its motorsport tyres, as in its P Zero Race RS tyre, which came out mid-pack in our CN Labs own rolling resistance tests of 24 tyres.

Nevertheless, it says that there’s a 10% decrease in rolling resistance, amounting to 2 watts saved per pair of tyres, due to its new LiteCore 120 TPI tubeless-ready casing.

The lighter casing is claimed to be more supple, increasing ride comfort and grip, as well as lowering weight.

Despite a lighter casing, there’s still a puncture protection belt built into the tyre, and Di Clemente says that the mileage you can expect is the same as for the P Zero Race RS tyre.

Pirelli is also likely to launch a time trial version in future, Di Clemente states.

The P Zero Race SL-R is also the first tyre in the P Zero range not to be sold in 26mm width. It’s already been used in the pro ranks and has ridden to two stage wins and the points classification in the 2026 AlUla Tour, as well as Stage 7 of Tirreno-Adriatico, by Lidl-Trek’s Jonathan Milan. Matheu van der Poel himself also appeared to be using the tyres at Milan-San Remo.

Mounting and first ride impressions

As with many tubeless tyres, mounting the P Zero Race SL-R tyres was a bit of an ordeal. But once on the rim, I seated both tyres first time with just a track pump, and they held air immediately. On a 19mm hooked rim, they measured exactly 28mm.

A ride of a couple of hours suggested that they provide good comfort on typical UK road surfaces, and they felt as if they rode performance tyre fast, even if I had no basis to assess the aero claims.

Pirelli P Zero Race SL-R prices

Both the 28mm and 30mm width of the Pirelli P Zero Race SL-R tyre are priced at £94.99 in the UK, or £99.99 for the Team Issue tyre with yellow logos, as ridden by Mathieu van der Poel.

In Europe, both the standard and Team Issue tyres cost €99.99.

The Hunt Spring Sale is live, and the UK wheel brand renowned for its cutting-edge design has up to 40% off some of its best road bike wheels and best gravel wheels too. It means you can grab a set of Hunt high-performance bicycle wheels, ready for summer riding, at a fraction of the cost.

Shop the Hunt Spring Sale and save up to 40%.

Below, I've selected a few of the best Hunt Spring Sale deals from the UK site, including road and gravel wheelset deals. With some marked as limited stock, I'd suggest that if you have your eyes on a particular wheelset, grab it fast, as with all the best cycling deals, it's only while stock lasts.

Hunt US also has the same discounts running, and with a US-based HQ and Warehouse in Boulder, CO, there are no hidden charges or shipping delays for US customers, with next-day dispatch for wheel orders across all territories.

Best Hunt Spring Sale Road wheel deals

Best Hunt Spring Sale Gravel wheel deals

To sweeten these wheel deals further, Hunt has 40% off across some of the best road bike tyres and the best gravel tyres. If you read our latest Lab Testing on gravel tyres and are swayed by the results, then some of the best mountain bike tyres have 40% off too.

It's worth noting that you can only take advantage of these tyre reductions when purchasing a wheelset. Unfortunately, Hunt can't supply tyres at these prices separately.

These tyre discounts include our top-rated road bike tyre – the Continental Grand Prix 5000 S TR is discounted (for a pair) to just £101.40 from £169. Our choice as one of the best gravel options is the Schwalbe G-One Allround, which is discounted to a bargain £92.40 (for a pair) from the list price of £154.

You can also add tyre fitting at the time of purchase, which for just £39, includes tubeless sealant and tubeless valves. It also takes the hassle out of installation, and your new wheelset will arrive basically good to go.

An added incentive is the Hunt 60-Day Ride & Return policy – so you have plenty of riding time to try and test a wheelset, then keep it or return it for a full refund (or product swap).

Hunt also offers a three-year warranty, 'H_Care' lifetime replacement on all its carbon wheels (purchased for $99), and next-day US and UK shipping.

As Tadej Pogačar stormed to victory at the 20th edition of the men's Strade Bianche, the tech-centred attention was shared equally by his paint-stripped black Colnago Y1Rs and the strange sensor positioned on the underside of his upper arm, but it turns out the Slovenian had one more trick up his sleeve: Secret wheels.

The eagle-eyed Cyclingnews tech team spotted that the World Champion was riding what looked to be his sponsor Enve's SES 6.7 wheels. According to Enve, these comprise a 60mm front rim and 67mm rear, complete with a 23mm internal rim width and a hookless bead.

Had he done that last season, nobody would have batted an eyelid, but the UCI introduced a new rule on January 1 that banned wheels over 65mm deep, effectively making the SES 6.7 rear wheel illegal.

So did Pogačar use an illegal wheel for his Strade Bianche victory? Fortunately for him, the answer to that question, according to our sources, is no. So what's really going on?

Speaking exclusively to Cyclingnews, the team's press officer, Luke Maguire, confirmed that the rear wheel was 65mm deep, but was unable to give any more details. Enve doesn't make a 65mm rear wheel as far as we can tell, so was he lying to us? Was he simply trying to throw us off the scent of illicit activity?

Evidently not, because soon after, Enve's VP of Marketing, Neil Shirley, offered a similar explanation, but with some more clarity, and it turns out Pogačar was given a prototype wheelset to use for the race.

"We do have a wheel in development that provides UAE Team Emirates a UCI-legal SES 6.7," he began.

"Rather than looking for a workaround (like using the shallower front rim laced to the rear hub), we took the opportunity to do a proper development project."

And it's not just Pogačar who's been using them. Images from Paris-Nice show Brandon McNulty also using the should-be-banned Enve SES 6.7s.

Printed logos

Helpfully, the logos on Enve's rims are printed with the depth written in plain black and white, but frustratingly for us, the writing is small enough that even the best photos from the various professional photographers on the ground at the race were unable to capture it clearly enough to see in retrospect.

And we've not yet gotten close enough to a pair to see if it's printed with the claimed 65mm depth, or whether they are simply badged up with the older wheels' logos for stealth.

Regardless of that, it's evident from the footage of the race and subsequent images that the front wheel is still slightly shallower, so it has presumably been kept at 60mm, rather than trying to maximise the 65mm limit and running equal depths front and rear.

Shirley promised to let us know as soon as Enve was able to share more details, and for the time being, is remaining tight-lipped on other details such as internal rim width.

And as a result, we'll have to wait and see if they remain hookless, or whether the hooked bead reintroduced with the SES 4.5 Pro is being used again here.

Continental has launched an all-new gravel tyre, the Terra Competition, providing "uncompromised speed and improved aerodynamics". It refers to this new model as a design "to blur the line between road and gravel", and the goal from product managers was apparently just to be fast.

At first glance, which I was able to do last October in Bentonville, Arkansas before Big Sugar Gravel, the Terra Competition appeared to be just a slick to use on pavement. But a closer look, and then a test ride on 18 miles of tarmac and chunky gravel, provided a clearer focus of that "blur". The first glance proved to be misleading, as the Terra Competition was not only smooth but grippy.

Low profile for aerodynamics

The design for multi-surface speed was quite evident, with a unique tread pattern and lightweight construction.

The tread pattern includes a low profile and a continuous centre line. Light knobs on the tread actually are a bit more pronounced towards the shoulder, but still streamlined, which Continental touts as a design "to reduce aerodynamic drag" and provide confidence for "necessary soil interaction" with off-road environments.

There are two casings for the Terra Competition - Race and Trail - with different compound configurations. The Race casing is a supple one-ply construction with reinforced sidewall and crown, while The Trail casing is also one ply but with more overlap protection on the crown for puncture protection. Both are tubeless ready and hookless compatible and sold with a folding bead.

In a press release, Continental described the material used for puncture protection as "a textile breaker" which is used throughout its tyre ranges. There was a bit more used in the Trail casing, which gave that version a bit more weight. All models use the famous BlackChilli rubber compound, found on the brand's high performance road and gravel models such as the venerable Continental GP5000 S TR.

The weight optimisation was touted to save up to 16% of weight (up to 68g), with the 35-622 Race variant weighing just 345g, as compared to Continental's Terra Speed at the same size, which came in at 413g.

There is also a claimed reduction of up to 17% in rolling resistance in comparing the two Continental offerings, Terra Competition versus Terra Speed.

• Weight: 345g (35mm width, 28"), 420g (40mm width, 28"), 470g (45mm width, 28")
• Available in 700 x 35mm, 40mm, and 45mm and in Race and Trail casings
• $87.95-$89.95 / €75.99-€77.75 for Race Rapid in 35/40/45 black sidewall only
  $76.95-$78.95 / €65.69-€68.25 for Trail Grip in 35/40/45 black sidewall or black/transparent

Continental sponsored athlete, Russell Finsterwald, had the following feedback to offer after using the new tyres in training, before breaking them out to race Valley of Tears in Texas in early March:

"It's really cool to have a tyre that is fast that also handles," Finsterwald outlined the overall performance.

"It's an aggressive tyre that's meant for going fast on courses that have a fair bit of tarmac and little bit of dirt. I think the things I've noticed on them is they're just really fast rolling in a nice, supple tire. And for being a semi-slick, they actually corner really well."

The general consensus around gravel tyres is that wider is faster. Professional riders like Dylan Johnson have been banging this drum for a few years now, and nearly every pro bike we saw at The Traka last year had the limits of clearance pushed to the point that paint was definitely going to be removed should things get muddy, which they did.

This has been somewhat fuelled by our own studies last year into road tyre width, where we concluded that wider road tyres were faster for nearly everyone, even going up to 40mm slicks.

Much of these studies, ours and others’, have been based purely around rolling resistance data, taken either from a rolling resistance rig, or by our preferred method of a pedalling efficiency rig, which we will come to in the methods section shortly.

The issue with taking only rolling resistance data is that it doesn’t account for the fact that wider tyres present a greater frontal area to the wind, and as such, should be less aerodynamic.

With this in mind, we undertook two separate tests. In the first, we took a full suite of tyre widths, all the same model, and ran them through the wind tunnel at our second home, the Silverstone Sports Engineering hub, to find the wattage penalties associated with going wider.

In the second, we ran the same suite of tyres on the pedalling efficiency rig to find the rolling resistance gains (or losses) therein, allowing us to combine the data and show, at least in the case of a single tyre model, whether wider is actually faster when taking both factors into account.

The tyres

To test a full-width sweep with as many other variables remaining consistent throughout, we selected the Vittoria Terreno Dry as the model of choice. It comes in widths as skinny as 31c, and as wide as 2.4” (61mm), with plenty of options in between. Given that this test is about gravel tyres, we discounted anything below 37mm wide, both for time efficiency and because realistically most of you reading this probably aren’t considering fitting 35mm tyres to your gravel bikes.

To throw a slight spanner in the works, Vittoria refreshed the Terreno range, replacing named models with a T-Score system, meaning the 'Terreno Dry' became the 'T-30' model, and some widths were re-labelled to reflect their as-fitted size better.

I’ll get into the testing methodology shortly, but for the aero testing, you’ll see slightly different sidewall colours. We ran the aero testing bike-only, and as we were only concerned with the tyre shapes from a data perspective, the casing type didn't matter.

For the rolling resistance portion of this investigation, we did standardise the casings as best we could. The majority of the suite, from 37mm to 55mm, were constructed using Vittoria’s ‘Gravel Endurance’ casing, while the 2.25” (57mm) and 2.4”(61mm) were constructed using the ‘XC Race’ casing. The extremely low profile nature of the central knobs also serves to reduce the ‘drum effect’ on the rolling resistance rig, whereby tyre knobs are pressed into the carcass and cause the tyre to deform more than it would on actual surfaces, artificially inflating the rolling resistance figures.

From an outside perspective, the tyres appeared visually the same in construction, and I was assured by Vittoria's UK distributor that they were ‘as near as dammit’ the same, though, as we will see in the data, it appears this was probably not the case. In an ideal world, we would have tested the ‘XC Trail’ casing as well, but sadly, we are not blessed with infinite time and resources on this front. Regardless, the data these tyres produced is certainly enlightening.

We also tested a few extra variables to ensure what we were measuring was down to just the tyre width. While in the wind tunnel, we also ran a series of tyres with increasing knobbly-ness to see if heavily treaded tyres are slower aerodynamically.

Present on the day

• Jamie Williams - Video manager, and willing pedalling efficiency rig rider
• Josh Croxton - Associate Editor and leader of our aero testing
• Tom Wieckowski - Tech Writer, ex mechanic, making sure everything was measured and standardised properly
• Ed Westrop - Videographer, making sure we get loads of lovely 4K footage
• Will Jones (me) - Senior Tech Writer, on photo and content duty, as well as tyre changing, general dogsbody, and running the rolling resistance part of the testing
• The SSE staff - Always helpful, and without them ‘driving’ the machines we’d be scuppered

How we tested

Wind tunnel

Unlike our wind tunnel bike tests, we opted to run our tyre sweep as a bike-only test. This was partially down to time constraints, as we had spent the morning teasing out the differences between aero socks, amongst other things, and partially to produce the ‘cleanest’ possible data, without the noise that adding a rider imparts. Bikes cannot ride themselves, but as we were only changing the tyres each time, this seemed the ideal option.

We ran our standard protocol, which will be familiar to many of you by now. A full sweep of yaw angles (the angle at which the wind hits the bike) from -15º to +15º in 5º increments. The cranks were run without pedals and fixed in place throughout to ensure they didn’t have any impact on proceedings. The tunnel was ‘tared’, like pressing ‘zero’ on your kitchen scales, before every run also. Our test bike, an Allied Able, naturally remained unchanged throughout the day in all respects.

Unlike our road bike tests, where we run the tunnel at 40km/h, we opted for 35km/h in this case. While this is an extremely punchy pace for an amateur gravel ride, it represents the pro gravel race speeds, and crucially, is fast enough that differences should be measurable. Aero differences increase the faster you go, and so at slower speeds they will diminish, but at this point we assume that if you’re worrying about how aero your gravel tyres are, you’re at least considering racing on them.

We tested each pair of tyres on two sets of wheels: a set of Zipp 303 XPLR NSWs, with their extremely wide internal 32mm width, and a set of Hunt 40 CGRs, with a more ‘normal’ 25mm internal rim. This should allow us to see if having a wider rim offsets the greater frontal area of a wider tyre by offering up a smoother wheel-tyre interface to the wind.

Tyre pressures were standardised, based on SRAM’s online tyre pressure calculator, as this is what many of you would probably do in the real world, and what we use as a first port of call when setting our own pressures, and it is scalable.

To ascertain a confidence margin, we repeated the 38mm size at the start and end of the day, using the variability of the results to inform us. The difference between the two runs was 0.28 watts.

Pedalling efficiency rig

Our previous rolling resistance investigations have focused on swapping various models of tyres on a single surface, or investigating the impact of increasing road tyre size on one or two surfaces. The pedalling efficiency rig (PER) at Silverstone has three simulated surfaces on its drum: smooth tarmac, closely packed cobbles known as ‘setts’ (the closest analogy to general gravel we have), and large, widely spaced cobbles that simulate extremely rough terrain.

The test bike – a Lauf Seigla with a rigid fork in this case, though the difference in bike doesn’t impact the tyres as we are no longer concerned with aerodynamics here – is mounted to a fork jig, and the rear wheel only is tested on the drum. This means the rolling resistance data is for a single wheel only, and so any result needs to be multiplied by 1.818 to account for the slight bias of weight distribution towards the rear wheel.

We used brand new cassettes across the wheelsets, and the bike was fresh from the factory with a brand new chain to avoid any mucky drivetrains throwing the results off. The chain was coated in the original factory grease, which we accept isn't necessarily the most efficient setup, but as it remains constant, and we are only interested in the wattage differences between tyre sizes rather than absolute resistance values, it bears no impact on the final results.

It’s a simple power in (measured by a set of Body Rocket pedals that measure 1,000 times a second) versus power out at the drum measurement, and gives data immediately, allowing us to perform any repeats should anomalies arise, which they did on a small number of occasions.

We ran a full suite of tyre sizes on both wheel options (Hunt and Zipp), before swapping to a new surface, repeating the 38mm size at the start and end of each surface session to produce an error margin for each, taking the largest figure as our actual error margin (as the others could be falling within the larger error margin). This figure is 1.33 watts, slightly higher than that of the tunnel data, but down to the fact that Jamie, our Video Manager, was on the bike pedalling to a pair of speeds – 25km/h and 35km/h – so there is some human variability added into the mix.

Each speed is a 60-second run. We ran a second, slower speed simply to add more data, despite not testing the aerodynamic properties at this slower speed. Rolling resistance is a linear relationship, and so should simply scale. Two speeds, three surfaces, and a large suite of widths mean we needed 42 runs, not accounting for any repeats. We didn’t run the Zipp rims with the 38mm tyre, even though we tested this setup in the wind tunnel. It is narrower than the recommended safe minimum for these rims, and we didn’t want to risk blowing sealant all over some extremely expensive equipment and not being allowed to come back.

Each tyre size was run tubeless, with an identical 30ml of Juice Lubes sealant in it, with identical Juice Lubes valves (in Cyclingnews purple). We could have scaled the sealant with size, but in our experience, this is about the minimum needed to help seal a tyre, and keeps the sealant variable consistent throughout. Pressures were checked before each run to make sure they were holding air. The tyres were also monitored for temperature throughout the test, given a warm-up period before starting measurement, and were kept in my house the day before the test to keep them at room temperature as much as possible in the run-up.

We also measured Jamie’s weight constantly and kept him ‘topped up’ with fluid so that it remained constant as he sweated his way through close to 100km of riding on a static bike.

At the end of the day, primarily out of curiosity and a surfeit of free time, we ran what we thought of as the most standard setup at point of sale – a Hunt rim, shod with a 45mm tyre – on the setts surface at a sweep of pressures from 50PSI down to 10PSI, in 10PSI decrements, to ascertain whether pressure has a greater impact on rolling resistance than it does on the road. Our previous testing shows that it matters very little what pressure you run on the road as long as you are within a pretty healthy window, either side of your ideal pressure.

Additional disclaimers and caveats

As ever, we are not trying to claim this is the last word in tyre data. Our results are based on two days of testing, on a single tyre model (or models, if you account for the casing differences). There is always scope for more study.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that these results are designed to show comparative differences between different tyre widths, and are not designed to pass judgment on whether the wheels or bikes we used to test the tyres are fast or otherwise in their own right.

There is more to tyre performance than simply reducing your total retarding forces to as small a number as possible. They are your only contact with the ground on which you ride, and there are myriad other factors that could be equally as important, if not more important, to your overall performance, be that in a race or just out riding.

Grip is always key, as is puncture resistance, mud-shedding ability, and how easy the tyre is to set up on a rim and how easily it is to seat and seal using a sealant of your choosing. Remember to consider these things in the round, as well as price. If you’re not getting your tyres from a sponsor, then they can be a big outlay for what is effectively a consumable good.

Finally, our aero data has been weighted to reflect the yaw angles experienced at the speeds at which we tested. The faster you ride, the more time you spend with a yaw angle closer to zero degrees. As we are testing at slower speeds than we do for road bikes the data has been weighted, using a protocol outlined in Nathan Barry's 2018 paper, A New Method for Analysing the Effect of Environmental Wind on Real World Aerodynamic Performance in Cycling, to weight wider yaw angles very slightly more heavily to try and ensure the data is as real world applicable as possible.

All the data below is subject to the respective confidence margins outlined above. It will be clarified and repeated where necessary to avoid any confusion or overstated accuracy.

Sponsor declaration

None of this test is sponsored in any way. The equipment we used was all provided free of charge by the brands (Lauf, Allied, Vittoria, Hunt, Zipp, Juice Lubes), and naturally, they are getting some airtime, but have not paid to be included in any way. Even if they had, as we aren’t directly comparing brands against each other, it wouldn’t have added any impropriety, but it bears saying nonetheless.

We paid the standard rate for both the wind tunnel and the PER, which is only possible thanks to you, our readers, continuing to support our testing endeavours through your subscriptions.

Results

Aerodynamic losses

Given the aero data is, while slightly more complex in its maths, the simpler of the two in terms of the actual volume of bulk data, let’s start here.

The yaw weighted wattage differences for each tyre size are as follows, starting with the Hunt wheels, then the Zipps:

As we are not comparing bikes with riders, where the actual wattage or CdA figure is actually applicable, I have reduced the data to a comparative wattage versus the fastest, which in both cases is the smallest size.

The numbers are pretty similar, with the Zipp setup being marginally faster in almost all cases, except at the 2” (51mm) size. This is more easily seen when graphed:

We assumed that the Hunt wheel would perhaps be faster at lower widths, due to the internal and external rim width better matching the smaller tyres, diverging from the Zipp and becoming slower the further up the size range you go, but things are basically the same throughout. As these are wattages versus the narrowest (fastest) size, we can say that, as the Hunt is showing slightly higher numbers throughout, the differences in aerodynamic performance are slightly greater, likely due to the wheel-tyre interface, than they are with the Zipp wheels, but the differences between the two setups are pretty marginal.

The differences between the tyre sizes themselves, however, are larger, with six and a half watts lost by swapping to a 2.4” tyre from a 38mm. This is quite an extreme swap, and likely not something many people will be doing if they have a bike that can take such enormous tyres.

A more reasonable scenario would be someone who has purchased a gravel bike that came with stock 47mm tyres, swapping them out for 2.25” models, which would create a 4-watt aero drag penalty at 35km/h. If, however, you are riding slower than 35km/h, then this will be smaller.

That contextualises the aero losses, which I think can be best summed up as measurable, but perhaps only large enough to warrant worrying about if you are riding gravel competitively.

Rolling resistance losses

There’s a lot more data to get into here, given that we have three surfaces to cover. In this case, I am presenting the power losses for each tyre as they came out of the PER for both speeds (25km/h and 35km/h). As well as a wattage differential versus the fastest tyre in the suite of widths – the largest option, in almost every case, for every speed – before scaling that figure by 1.818 to create a total system rolling resistance penalty versus the fastest setup.

We will start with tarmac, then setts (which is the closest gravel analogue), then cobbles.

What is curious is that, in all cases and on all surfaces, the rolling resistance increases with width until you hit the MTB tyres (2.25” and 2.4” models - 57mm and 61mm). This certainly came as a surprise, as we had initially assumed there would be a decrease in rolling resistance with increasing width, especially on rougher surfaces.

Staring at number tables isn’t overly helpful to visualise things, though, so I’ve graphed everything for you in a couple of ways. Firstly, as the data is presented in the tables, with the power losses being compared to the fastest option, you’ll see the largest tyre sizes having a ‘zero’ power loss.

In order to better mesh together the aero and rolling resistance data, I have also graphed them with power losses versus the smallest size. In these graphs, you’ll see the same shape, but anything above the horizontal axis is slower, and anything below it is faster than the smallest tyre (38c for the Hunt rims, 40c for the Zipps).

There is a slight gap in the data in one of the tables above, and therefore in one of the graphs. When testing the Zipp wheels on tarmac with a 55c tyre, we noticed a clear random power spike that threw that run totally off, and as such, we repeated it, but neglected to repeat it for both speeds, leaving a blank in the 25km/h data. Given the glut of data elsewhere, this doesn’t really impact our ability to tease out trends or conclusions, but it needed explaining nonetheless.

What can we glean from this data, then? Well, on the face of it, it looks like MTB tyres are fast, purely from a rolling resistance standpoint. The differences in tyre performance are of a greater magnitude than those created by aero differences, with swings reaching 43 watts between the fastest and slowest in the most extreme scenario (Zipp, setts, 35km/h), well above our margin of error, and clearly enough to surpass any aero penalty. Unsurprisingly, given the linear nature of rolling resistance losses, the differences are slightly greater between tyres at the higher speed.

Before we dive into conclusions, let’s combine the two datasets into something easily digestible.

Combined data

As I mentioned at the start, Vittoria’s tyre labelling changed between the first and second parts of these tests, which was slightly inconvenient, but nevertheless it’s possible to effectively match the old tyres to the new ones. Naturally, this dataset only considers 35km/h speeds, as that’s the only speed we tested in the tunnel. In the following tables, the data is presented with the rolling resistance width, then the equivalent label width from our wind tunnel suite, then the individual losses, before combining the two into a single figure for each size. I’ve left gaps for the tyres we didn’t test in the wind tunnel just to show where they are.

With the datasets combined, we can see that for the gravel tyres, discounting the larger MTB sizes, it’s almost always faster to go as narrow as possible, purely in combined retarding forces terms - we’re not able to pass comment on rider fatigue as a factor here, or grip. The one exception is on really rough ground, where the tyres seem to get faster the wider they go, with a small blip for the 51mm size. This flies in the face of what has become the received wisdom, but obviously that’s not the whole story, as the widest tyres, those with MTB casings, are significantly faster, even when you account for the additional aerodynamic drag they create.

Most interesting is the comparison between the smallest and largest sizes, versus two very closely spaced options. If we take the ‘setts’ surface, as the closest gravel analogy, going from a 38mm to a 51mm tyre with a Hunt rim is losing you 11.7 watts, but going from a 51mm to a 57mm is a little over 20 watts faster, just by swapping to MTB sizes. We don’t have aero data for a 55mm tyre, but looking at the trends insofar as wider tyres are slower in aero terms and, for gravel tyres at least, slower as they get wider too, this difference could well be even greater when you go from a 55 to a 57mm, which is effectively the same size tyre.

It’s clear from the data that, at least in the case of our test suite, MTB tyres are faster than gravel tyres, even accounting for the additional aero drag. Given their high volume, they can be made more supple, at least that’s the theory, given a lower risk of pinch flatting. It’s quite amazing, really, to see that a 2.4” tyre is faster than a 38mm tyre on the road, something that would have basically been unconscionable five years ago.

What does this mean for gravel bike design, and more importantly, for your tyre choices right now? I’ll dig into those broader questions in the conclusions, but before we get there, we have a couple of side quests to tick off regarding pressure and tread.

The effect of pressure

Because we had the time to do so, we thought we might as well run a mini study into how much can be won or lost by optimising one’s tyre pressure for gravel. In order to do this, we ran what we thought of as the most ‘standard’ gravel setup, a Hunt rim with 45c T30 tyre on the ‘setts’ surface at 35km/h, at pressures from 50PSI (slightly over the recommended allowance) down to 10PSI, in 10PSI increments. The data is as follows:

For the tyre setup in question, our test pressure, as given by SRAM’s online calculator, was 30.2PSI. I’ve highlighted the 30PSI to serve as a reference point, and it’s interesting to see that it wasn’t the fastest option, losing 8 watts to the 40PSI setup, which is about double the aero differentials we found between a 47mm and a 2.25” option. Somewhat hearteningly, as it fits our previous study, the differences in rolling resistance between 30PSI and 50PSI, which is a huge range for a 45mm tyre, were only 8 watts, with 50PSI being a single watt slower than that for 40PSI, which is within our margin of error.

If you’re not chasing every watt, then as long as you’re in the right zone, you’re going to be OK, broadly speaking, but from this data alone, it may pay to run your tyres a little harder than you think; if you ignore any handling and grip implications this may have.

Things clearly fall off a cliff when you lose air, though, with wattage penalties approaching triple figures in the very unfortunate hypothetical scenario that you double-flat and it seals at 10psi for each tyre. Taking a more realistic scenario of a single-wheel puncture that seals after losing 20PSI, you’re going to incur a penalty of 13.5 watts.

It should go without saying that this is a very small dataset. Further study with multiple tyre models is needed to say conclusively if running herder tyres that an online calculator suggests is a good idea, and again, there are more than just wattage considerations at play to consider.

The effect of tyre tread

Are knobbly tyres less aerodynamic than their smooth counterparts? In order to answer this, we used a few spare moments during our wind tunnel time to fit various 40mm tyres, primarily to Hunt rims, to see what happened.

In order of increasing knobby-ness, we had the basically smooth Goodyear Vector, then the Terreno Dry (or T30, as it is now known), then the Panaracer Gravelking X1, and finally the Panaracer G-One RX Pro, which is very knobbly indeed. These were tested using an identical protocol to the rest of our wind tunnel testing, and weighted in the same fashion, and the results are as follows:

From this, we can see that the Zipp wheels are marginally faster than the Hunts when set up with the Goodyear tyres, which were designed for these rims (SRAM can breathe a sigh of relief now).

We can also see that the totally smooth tyre is marginally faster than the knobby options, but between treaded tyres, there’s functionally no difference, so you can at least fit knobbly tyres safe in the knowledge that they aren’t slowing you down aerodynamically compared to smoother alternatives.

Surprisingly, running a fat front tyre and a skinny rear is faster than the opposite setup, by almost exactly half a watt. These were two extreme ends of the setup spectrum, and neither is one we suspect anyone will actually use, but it perhaps serves to illustrate that there’s very little penalty (and perhaps a minor benefit, though it’s very close to our error margin) in fitting a wider front tyre even if you can’t match it at the rear.

Conclusions

Are wider gravel tyres faster?

In a word, no. Our previous testing on road tyres up to 40mm seemed to suggest that the wider you go, the faster you get, especially on rougher surfaces, but the opposite appears to be true in this case, with both the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance increasing from 38 to 55mm sizes. It’s pretty clear the MTB options are of a different and much faster construction, and had they been constructed in the same manner as the rest of the cohort, we may well have had a nice linear, predictable rule to follow, but that is speculative.

To throw a slight spanner in the works, the MTB sizes did get faster with increasing size, but we only have two data points for each, though the relationship held true in almost every combination of rim, surface, and speed.

Once we ascertained that there was a clear difference between the gravel and MTB sizes, I went back to Vittoria for some clarification on the tyre construction, and was given the following information:

• Gravel endurance - Engineered with 100 TPI nylon, the Endurance Casing is built to handle the harsh demands of gravel riding. Its durable threads reduce rolling resistance while preserving a responsive ride feel, and help absorb trail chatter for added comfort and control on rough terrain. Designed for long-distance durability, it’s the foundation of reliable performance on every ride. 
  
• XC Race - This Race Casing 60 TPI Nylon offers a supple yet robust structure that enhances puncture resistance and impact absorption without compromising speed. Consistent deformation across tread and sidewall ensures peak performance in cross-country racing. 
  
• XC Trail - A durable 60-TPI nylon casing built for exploration. It resists abrasion and punctures while maintaining your connection to the trail with a mid-tier suppleness.

Cutting through the marketing lingo, there's no real way to tell without further testing whether the 'XC Trail' tyres would have been more closely analogous to the gravel models. It also shows that you cannot base your rolling resistance assumptions purely on the TPI (threads per inch) of the tyre, as, on the face of it, 100TPI should be more supple than 60TPI.

It is entirely possible that there is no hard and fast rule, and there is something in the construction of the Pirelli road tyres we tested, insofar as they get more supple with increasing width, whereas these Vittorias get less supple with increasing width. There are limitations that come with testing a single tyre model, and in order to investigate this further, we would need to test a full suite of widths of multiple tyre models.

Given the relationship was consistent in almost all scenarios, regardless of surface, differing only in magnitude, we could dispense with the tarmac and cobbles and stick to setts, freeing up time to test more tyre models.

Doesn't this contradict your previous tests?

In our test from 2025, we did a smaller study into increasing tyre width. In that test, it showed that wider tyres are faster, but there was a clear jump from tyres that were broadly similar in terms of rolling resistance, to getting a lot faster for the 2.1" size, which I suspect also had an MTB casing difference as we have seen here.

In some ways, our testing here supports the data there: wider, MTB size tyres are faster, and while it appeared that the 2.1" tyre had a similar construction to the rest of the cohort in 2025, I suspect it was probably utilising a more supple construction.

We can see that in 2025, the smallest size was slower, but this was labelled as a 'cyclocross' tyre rather than 'gravel endurance', so again, on a second reading with the benefit of hindsight, I think this is an outcome based on construction differences, not necessarily width. In our most recent testing here, the smallest sizes are at least labelled identically to the rest of the test cohort, which cleans up the datas markedy.

Ultimately, our previous study concluded that wider tyres are faster. I'm not going to say those results are totally wrong, but I think this time, with the benefit of both hindsight and experience, we have done a better job of isolating the casing differences and honing in on how much changing only width affects things.

It's also worth bearing in mind that in 2025 we were testing the rolling resistance of 'Terreno Dry' tyres, while in 2026 we were testing 'T30' models. Same tread, but we are unable to say for sure if there have been some tweaks to the construction under the hood to go along with the size labelling changes. Both sets of data, therefore, can be true.

Should you fit MTB tyres to your gravel bike?

The data certainly seems to suggest that you should, but it’s a slightly lunatic suggestion to say that you should either fit 2.4” rubber, or something 38mm wide; there’s a danger of real-world advice being totally derailed by lab-derived numbers here.

If it is true that MTB tyres in general are made more supple than gravel options, then yes, you probably should fit MTB tyres to your gravel bike - you will be faster. I would caveat that with the fact that we have only tested a single tyre model, and so further study that would pay dividends would be a direct comparison in terms of rolling resistance of MTB tyres and their gravel equivalents to see if there are broader market trends that can be ascertained.

There’s also some good reverse-advice for the MTB crowd here, too, in that there’s probably no benefit, and actually a penalty for swapping your chunky MTB tyres for something skinnier if you choose to use your MTB as a gravel bike, or even a road bike.

What does this mean for bike design?

Gravel racing is continuing to grow, both in popularity and professionalism. We have gravel race teams now, supplanting the privateer model, and with more sponsor money comes a greater focus on performance. There are clear wattage gains to be had when it comes to fitting extremely large MTB tyres to gravel bikes, but we are butting up against the limitations of design using road standards. Many new gravel bikes can just fit a 2.1” or sometimes a 2.25” tyre, and even our test bikes, both the Lauf and the Allied, could only run a 2.4” in a lab situation; the clearances were too tight to run out on the trail when you add wheel and frame flex and mud into the mix.

It’s not hard to see that in a few years, we could well see MTB standards replacing road ones for gravel. MTB width bottom brackets, combined with boost-spacing rear wheels, would allow chain and seat stays to more easily clear larger volume tyres and still leave room for mud and stones. This will no doubt cause some consternation amongst some readers and customers, but ultimately, it’s the simplest way to create the end goal the industry seems to be working towards. A slightly larger Q-factor may be the price we all have to pay.

A sense of perspective

It’s very easy to get drawn into the data and come out with conclusions that are simply not applicable to the real world. While it may be faster, I cannot in good conscience recommend you fit 38mm tyres to your gravel bike if you can only clear a 50mm just because our data says it’s better. I’ve tried it, and it isn’t.

I can also attest that MTB tyres aren’t just faster because they have a lower rolling resistance, but because they allow you to absolutely barrel down bumpy descents with far greater control and, dare I say it, in a safer fashion. They’re more fun to ride, in my opinion, and offer better grip on loose and technical climbs.

They’re also heavier and do feel more cumbersome on the road, and accelerate more reluctantly compared to skinnier alternatives. I’ve tried cramming giant tyres into bikes that really can’t accommodate them – if you read my Specialized Diverge review, you’ll see I squeezed 2.25” tyres into the frame and fork – and you risk damaging your frame too much in most cases for me to suggest it’s a good idea. If you’re a sponsored athlete who doesn’t buy their frames, I can see the appeal, but for consumers and amateur racers, it isn’t worth the risk.

What I’m trying to say is that there is more to choosing a tyre size than aero or rolling resistance data. Grip, handling, and ride feel are just as important as wattage gains, and all should be taken into account when choosing what you run. While I don’t think you should use this data as an impetus to fit bigger tyres than it can handle into a gravel bike you already own, I do think it serves as an extremely useful slice of information if you’re considering buying a new gravel bike.

Personally, looking at the data contained within this article, I’d be reluctant to buy a gravel bike nowadays that I couldn’t comfortably fit at least a 2.1” MTB tyre into, and ideally a 2.25”. There aren’t many of these about, but give it time…

Thank you’s

Firstly, thank you to you, our paying subscribers. Without you, we wouldn’t be able to indulge our professional curiosity to quite the same degree, and certainly unable to do so in the impartial and unbiased way we manage to do things at present. We hope articles like this continue to provide you with something that is either interesting, useful, or ideally both.

Thanks to Tom for helping to make sure everything went smoothly, was measured accurately, and run in a timely manner.

Thanks to Jamie for spending all day riding a static bike on rough surfaces. Nearly 100km indoors is bad enough without adding cobbles into the mix; rather you than me, pal!

As always, thanks to the SSE team, and an apology for sending sealant all over the windows. Lesson learned, I think!

Finally, thanks to the brands that sent us kit to use for this test – Lauf and Allied for the bikes, Hunt and Zipp for the wheels, Vittoria for the tyres, SRAM for the cassettes, and Juice Lubes for the sealant and valves. We couldn’t do this without your help.

Upgrading your wheels is a rite of passage for many cyclists, and choosing which set to plump for – an outlay that can range from several hundred to several thousand dollars – can involve poring over spec sheets and trying to decipher marketing jargon.

We have tested a great many wheels in the wind tunnel already, to provide comparative data across a whole range of models, but we also wanted to interrogate how certain design factors, namely wheel depth, spoke count, and spoke material, affect speed.

The received wisdom is that deeper wheels are faster, but how much faster are they? Carbon spokes are lighter and, due to their bladed shape (usually), are assumed to be more aerodynamic, but are they, with all else being equal? Finally, it seems to stand to reason that having fewer spokes would make a wheel faster, simply due to there being less material to interrupt the flow of air, but does it? And if it does, what are the actual differences?

With the aim of helping you make the most informed purchase decisions possible, we headed to the Silverstone wind tunnel again and investigated the impact of each of these variables, controlling for everything we possibly can to drill down into the impact of each change.

The UCI context

Given the headline it's prudent to outline the UCI ruling regarding wheel depth. In 2026 the sport's governing body outlined a new maximum wheel depth of 65mm at all points of a wheel's rim. This drew the ire of wheel brands, most prominently Swiss Side, which had to redevelop a new wheelset after it's new Hadron3 68mm wheels fell foul of the ruling.

A subsequent clarification on the rules only outlines increased velocity as a risk factor, with no mention of wheel stability, despite the fact that Swiss Side's ardent rebuttal to the ruling leans almost entirely on wheel stability.

As a general rule of thumb, deeper wheels (in our experience on the road) are generally harder to handle in crosswinds, and more prone to buffeting, which certainly is a safety factor that could justify a wheel depth rule, but it's also true that not every deep wheel is harder to handle than every shallower wheel, and given that the UCI has only leant on the increased velocity in its documentation of the ruling it seems valid to test those claims in isolation and, if necessary, call them out.

Cyclingnews has contacted the UCI for clarification on the justification of the wheel depth rules in the context of the results outlined in the latter section of this article, given that (without wishing to spoil the party) we found very little difference in terms of speed when you only change wheel depth.

Jump to: Wheel depth

Our common test variables

Each set of test wheels was mounted to an X-Lab AD9, which we happened to have on hand from aero testing earlier that day, and tested without a rider so as to provide the cleanest dataset possible. The differences were, we assumed, likely to be quite small, and so adding a rider would have provided a more realistic dataset, but the additional margin of error could well have overshadowed the differences and made the data effectively meaningless.

As usual, we tested across a sweep of yaw angles (the angle at which the wind hits the rider), from -15º to +15º in 5º increments. This, we feel, represents the majority of riding and racing scenarios for the performance cyclist. We tested at a single speed, 40km/h, which we feel represents a fast amateur race pace, or perhaps a breakaway day for higher-level competitors. It’s also fast enough to hopefully show sufficient differences, as aerodynamic differences scale with increasing magnitude, the faster one rides.

In order to account for any manufacturing differences across batches of the same tyre, not only was the same model of tyre used (a 28c Continental GP 5000 S TR), at the same pressure, but the exact same physical tyre was swapped across wheelsets just to be on the safe side.

We swapped both wheels to study the effect of a whole wheelset swap.

Our error margins are the same as our bike only tests, which we conducted on the same day, namely a CdA difference of 0.0007, or 0.58 watts at 40km/h.

The Tests

Are carbon spoked wheels faster?

In order to see if carbon spokes are faster we ran two front wheels with identical rims, one with carbon bladed spokes, the other with round steel ones. The wheels, at the time of writing, are unreleased Hunt prototypes. They feature identical rim profiles, with the front being slightly deeper than the rear (49.5mm vs 47mm).

Carbon spokes allow you to reduce your spoke count due to their increased strength. For this test, the carbon spoke wheel had 15 spokes, while the steel one had 20. This introduces another variable, which we will investigate further shortly, but for two identical wheels from the same brand, it is likely that the carbon set will have fewer spokes, so it’s still a reasonable pair of options to test.

It is worth saying at this point that we are discussing material, but primarily the aerodynamic properties are down to shape, and while most carbon spokes are bladed, and most steel spokes are round, you can get bladed metal spokes and you can get round carbon ones.

Here’s what the results show:

You'd be forgiven for thinking this chart is just two equally sized rectangles. When we calculate a coefficient of drag (CdA) for both wheels, the resulting output is extremely similar, with a total difference of 0.0007.

What does this number mean in practice, though? Small aerodynamic differences can have measurable impacts, as we know. Using these CdA figures for each wheel, we can calculate the power required to propel each wheel (and an identical bike, onto which they are mounted) at various velocities:

Even as the velocity increases to speeds most of us only hit on alpine descents, we can see the power differential between the two spoke options is extremely minimal, only just getting over a single Watt at 50km/h, rising to 4.38 Watts at 80km/h.

How do these differences translate into what has become the standard hypothetical 40km time trial? Well, minimal differences are still the order of the day: If you’re riding at 250w, then you’ll have a seven-second differential between these wheelsets, dropping to 6s at 350w, and 5s at 450w.

These differences are extremely minimal, and certainly totally imperceptible in drag terms, even in back-to-back testing, but time trials have been won or lost by tighter margins. If we turn our maths to a 300m sprint at 1,500w, the winning margin (all else being equal) would be 0.026s.

This is all somewhat presented with a pinch of salt, given the differences measured are exactly the same as our margin of error, meaning the actual results could be half what is presented here, or half as much again. In any case, it’s a small difference.

How much difference does spoke count make?

Given that the two prototype Hunt wheels we tested differed not only in spoke material but also spoke count, it was only prudent that we try to isolate the spoke count variable to see how much of an influence this was having on proceedings.

To this end, we tested a pair of Hunt 60 Limitless Aerodynamicist wheelsets, identical in every way besides one set having 24 spokes per wheel and the other 20 spokes per wheel. The resulting difference in CdA was even smaller at 0.0004. So as not to waste your time with two columns that appear identical, I’ll just give you the line graph below to see how things change with velocity; as you can probably tell, they’re basically indistinguishable.

Accounting for the error margin, the actual CdA difference could be next to nothing at its lowest, or a fraction more than what we measured for the spoke material, so again, take these with a pinch of salt.

A key takeaway is that the difference between changing spoke count is smaller than the difference between changing spoke material and spoke count, which means swapping from steel to carbon spokes is faster, independently of spoke count, if we discount the error margin. Naturally, if you swap from an extremely low spoke count steel spoked wheel to an extremely high spoke count carbon spoked wheel, your spoke material gains may be wiped out by your spoke count losses.

In any case, using the same parameters as before, you’d have to go 60km/h to measure a 1w difference (well, 0.99w, but I’m being kind). At 80km/h, you’re still only registering a 2.35-watt difference, not enough to even feel.

Using the time trial scenario, a 40km TT at 250 watts would net you a time gain of 3s if you lose 8 spokes in total (not accounting for the minimal weight loss, too). This remains the same even at 350 and 400 watts, and diving into the smaller fractions of time reveals thousandths of a second differences.

In a 300m sprint at 1,500 watts, your time difference over your identical twin using the same equipment, changing only the spoke count, is 14 hundredths of a second.

Do spokes matter, then?

I think it’s worth taking a step back at this point and contextualising things. We have found in our testing of various wheelsets that carbon-spoked wheels tend to be faster than round-spoked alternatives, but when we actually drill into the measurable differences between the two when we only change the spokes, the differences are so minor that with the error margins in play, they’re effectively negligible.

If you happen to be a WorldTour professional reading this, and a single watt at 50km/h is worth having, then carbon spokes may well offer a small competitive advantage, but I suspect for the vast majority of you reading this, the benefits of carbon spokes – purely in aerodynamic terms at least – aren’t necessarily all that great. Suffice it to say that while carbon spokes may help a total wheel system be fast, they aren’t the major factor that separates a fast wheel from a slow one.

There are other things to consider, including wheelset stiffness and system weight, where carbon spokes may offer further gains beyond small aero ones, but these may be offset by the fact that carbon spokes are harder to come by, and perhaps harder to replace should they fail, and increased wheel stiffness has knock-on impacts on ride comfort.

Are deeper rims faster?

The average depth of your ‘normal’ bicycle wheel for the performance oriented amateur has been creeping up over the years, with ‘all-rounder’ wheelsets sitting around the 50mm mark, with options in the 60mm depth and greater (but not that much greater, given the ever-present hand of the UCI rulebook) reserved for flat days, sprinters, and more all-out aero machines.

The general consensus is that deeper wheels are faster, but are they, and if so, what are the differences? To test this, we ran a set of three wheelsets through our testing protocol. Each was a Hunt Aerodynamicist wheelset, with the same hubs, the same spoke count, the same steel spokes, and the same rim profile, differing only in rim depths.

We tested 34/34, 44/46, and 54/58mm pairings.

The differences in CdA are bigger here than when we were simply tinkering with spokes, with a 0.033 swing from the shallowest to the deepest. How does this equate to wattage at different velocities?

As with everything aerodynamic, the differences are more pronounced at higher speeds, but at more attainable velocities for a lot of us (under 50km/h), the wattage differences are still relatively minimal, at around 5 watts at 50km/h and just over a single watt at 30km/h.

When we resolve this for speed, we can see that at 250 watts, there’s only a differential of 0.81km/h across the whole range. At higher wattages, this grows (a little bit) to 0.9 km/h at 350w, and 0.98km/h at 450w.

At very high wattages of 1,500w the speed differential is 1.47km/h. In all of these cases, you need to remember that this is for a bike only, which is why the velocities are higher than they would be if you had a rider on the bike actually outputting that power.

What does this mean for the UCI wheel depth rule?

The UCI’s suite of new safety regulations, including mandating minimum handlebar widths that had scorn poured on them by bike fitters and female athletes alike, all revolve around trying to reduce the average speed of races. While we were unable to test a UCI-illegal wheel with an identical rim profile, we can extrapolate the data out.

It's not a perfect solution, but adding a fourth illegal wheel into the test suite would have changed the 'shape' variable, which would render the data it produced somewhat useless.

Simplifying slightly, an increase in wheel depth from 33-56mm (taking the front wheel depth as the reference depth) results in a speed increase of less than 1km/h at WorldTour power levels.

If we take this data and flip it the other way, assuming the speed gains are linear, going from a UCI legal 56mm deep wheel to a very illegal 79mm deep rim, would again only show a gain of less than 1km/h.

This is an extreme scenario, and even when there was no minimum wheel depth rule, we didn’t regularly see pro riders cutting about on 80mm deep rims; they’re heavier and harder to handle in windy conditions. Distilling it down to a per-millimetre velocity gain: based on our limited dataset, every millimetre is worth 0.045km/h at 450 watts. Denying riders the use of a 68mm wheel, forcing them to use a 65mm equivalent (assuming they have access to such closely spaced wheel sizes), would create a speed differential of 0.135km/h, which I think we can all agree wouldn’t be enough to make a meaningful safety difference.

This isn’t just a hypothetical. Swiss Side developed a 68mm version of its Hadron 3 wheels, which were then affected by the ban, forcing the brand to develop a 65mm version. This would have caused a huge tooling cost to create the physical moulds, let alone the R&D and lost revenue from illegal wheels, all for 0.135km/h. Even with a wider swing, from the 55mm deep Hadron 3 to the illegal 68 version, the difference is a paltry 0.585km/h. Hitting the ground at 49.5km/h is going to suck just as much as it will at 49km/h.

Swiss Side itself claims the 68mm Hadron is has a 0.5w drag advantage over the 65mm deep version. I'm not sure what speed this was at, but assuming the industry standard-ish 40km/h, we can use this as a sense check on our extrapolations. Half a watt is half the difference we found at 40km/h between the mid-depth Hunts and the deeper Hunts, which itself resulted in a velocity difference at 450 watts of 0.36km/h. Inputting some hypothetical CdA figures to artificially create a 0.5w difference at 40km/h results in a 0.18km/h velocity differential, so our extrapolations are in the right ballpark.

While the law is well-intentioned, it is symptomatic of the UCI’s approach to safety: Regulate equipment, with less of a focus on course design and other systemic changes that could actually make meaningful improvements. Regulating wheel depth will slow riders down, but according to our data at least, it is to such a small degree as to be basically meaningless.

Thank yous

As ever, these tests couldn't happen without the help of a good number of people.

Thanks must go to Hunt for providing the suite of test wheels, and to Continental for the use of its tyres. Hunt also provided Paddy Brown, its design engineer, who was on hand to answer any wheel questions and to muck in with tyre changes.

My colleague, Tom, made sure everything was properly set up, weighed, measured, and all above board, and for my part, I mostly manned a camera and tried to capture everything we were testing as the day progressed.

While we pay the full commercial rate for our wind tunnel access, thanks as ever go to the SSE team for helping to facilitate our testing days.

Finally, thanks to you, our subscribers. Without you, we wouldn't be able to run these tests, so know that your membership fee is being put to good use.

When autumn comes, and my local gravel and off-road loops are a little slicker and muddier, i'll have a little slide or moment in a turn and think to myself, 'just be careful; remember what tyres you're on'.

I love how the best gravel tyres roll, but there comes a point in the British winter when things get muddy and slick, some tyres don't offer masses of grip, and I wanted more. This winter, I headed to the other end of the spectrum and tested some of the grippiest, most aggressive gravel tyres on the market.

Enter the Vittoria Terreno T90 Mud, the Italian brand's most aggressive gravel model.

The T90 evolved from the Terreno Wet model, and in Vittoria's words, is 'engineered for performance in the most extreme gravel conditions'. It shares the same tread as the old Terreno Wet, and sits at one end of Vittoria's updated gravel range.

I fitted these tyres early in the winter, and have used them exclusively until now. I've used them in the mud, rain, ice and snow, and they have seriously impressed me. If you want to fit a winter gravel tyre that prioritises grip when the weather starts to turn and run with it all winter, knowing it will have your back, this could be the tyre for you.

Design and aesthetics

Vittoria overhauled its gravel tyre range and introduced new classification ratings last year. There's now a numerical severity grading scale to help you choose.

The T90's sit at one end of the Vittoria gravel endurance range, aside from the now all brown gravel race models.

The Endurance range starts at T10, and runs through T30,50,60,70,80 and 90 models. Essentially, the larger the number, the more aggressive the tyre is.

The T90's do share the same tread as the old Terreno Wet. I thought it was slightly different, but Vittoria confirmed that it is the same to me.

Specs-wise, the tyres are available in 40 and 45mm sizes, and in brown and black sidewall colour options.

The Endurance range tyres benefit from the 100 TPI (threads per inch) Endurance tyre casing, which uses Graphene, something of a calling card for Vittoria. We're looking at tyres designed to be all-rounders here. The tyres have an anti-puncture belt, which makes sense, they aren't featherlight race tyres. There's also extra nylon sidewall protection.

However, the tyres aren't heavyweight tanks; they still feel nimble in use, not super solid and heavy, so don't be put off on that front. I weighed my brown sidewalled 45mm ones at 544 grams per pair. Only just over 10 grams heavier than the 44mm Vittoria Mezcal tyres (now the 'T70') my colleague Will rates.

The tyres are hookless compatible, but check your hookless wheels will also play with them just to be safe.

Tread-wise, the T90's feature aggressive, widely spaced knobs that wrap around the tread quite a long way. Out of the box and mounted, they looked really mean on my gravel test bike.

Vertically oriented outer knobs sit at the furthest points of the tread, and in between them are angled single knobs, with the central section being made up of double alternating lugs. They certainly look proper and will inspire confidence at the very least.

Performance

These are tyres designed to perform at the extreme end of the scale, so how is the grip from them? In a word, fantastic. In my test period, the tyres have only ever given me confidence, providing huge amounts of grip and traction in the mud, and on descents and off-camber sections, and even dealing well in ice and in snow.

One standout test was riding up an off-camber, shallow climb that was one sheet of ice after a recent freeze. I rode it without incident, and the tyres didn't blink.

I've tackled all sorts of terrain, including what comfortably passes for XC MTB territory, not one slip, slide, or loss of traction have I had. I completely trust these tyres in muddy, slippery conditions, and they have been a real asset in this regard.

The tread is similar to a cyclocross mud option, just in a 45mm size. Mud clearance has been very good, and just a non-issue for me, top marks there.

It's gotten to the point where I'll try and tackle something like an off-camber muddy bank, or greasy, slick descent and think 'maybe this time', waiting for a slip or for rear wheel traction to break, and it just never comes. I'm not saying they are a magic bullet that will let you tackle the impossible like some sort of gravel Ibex, but I'm yet to see them come unstuck.

My local riding starts and ends with road sections, with some in the middle too. Unfortunately, I can't head into the hills for hours on end. On the road, the tyres do feel a little bit draggier and sluggish, but importantly, they don't feel wooden and dead. Look at them – speed on the road isn't a priority.

I'm happy to live with this for what they bring to the table off-road in the depths of winter. I'm not trying to keep up with anyone on the gravel bike on my solo rides; I'm doing the same power, I'm just going a bit slower. It is something to think about, at least if your gravel riding involves plenty of on-road action, but if you're looking at fitting these tyres, it's probably not a concern for you.

I've also experienced zero punctures in my test period, from early November until now in mid February. In some truly disgusting conditions (thankfully) there have been zero flats or issues for me.

The setup was also trouble-free for me. I mounted the tyres without issue on some Vision SC45 carbon wheels, which came as stock on my Ribble Ultra Grit, which I have been testing this winter. I've run the tyres tubeless and with tubes, and again, zero issues. I had to have a couple of goes at just getting the bead popped into place on one wheel to eliminate a little bobble, but that was it.

Value

I can't fault the performance on any front, really, with the T90's. For traction and grip in poor conditions, they are fantastic. I've had zero punctures, and they also don't seem to have worn prematurely.

Price-wise, they come in at $81.99 / £54.99 / €58.95 each, and from what I can see, that price is fixed no matter the spec on the Vittoria website.

They are a touch more than the WTB Resolute tyres, which we also rate highly for wet conditions and slightly less than the Schwalbe G One Ultrabite, which is a similar tyre, though now discontinued.

In short, they are similarly prices to other similar aggressive off road tyres. If this is the kind of tyre you are interested in, you will not be let down by the T90's.

Verdict

These tyres represent an excellent evolution for the Terreno Wet model. In the terrain they are designed for, they have been faultless for me, providing masses of grip and boosting confidence. It also helps that I haven't had any issues with them; the last thing you want is having to mess around fixing a flat when everything is covered in mud.

On the road they aren't as zippy as other models, but these are tyres at the extreme end of the spectrum. What's important to say is that they haven't detracted from the on-ride road feel for me.

If the off-road or gravel conditions where you live get muddy, slick and wet in the winter, and you still like tackling plenty of off-road terrain and getting stuck in, or you just want to give yourself the maximum amount of grip and confidence, then fitting the T90's will help you stay locked in place. They are fantastic tyres, and I'm yet to find a scenario they can't handle.

At the Grand Départ of the 2024 Tour de France, as I wandered about the Piazzale Michelangelo, which hosted the Teams Presentation ahead of stage 1 in Florence, I spotted an unusual tyre.

It was Continental-branded, but with what can only be described as 'divets' chipped out of it at regular intervals along each shoulder, instead of the usual Continental sipe design.

A few days later, Continental announced it to be the Aero 111, a front-only tyre designed in conjunction with DT Swiss and aero experts, Swiss Side, with claims of reduced aero drag compared to the brand's ever-popular - and excellent, I will add - GP5000 S TR, as well as a host of other competitors from Pirelli, Vittoria, Enve and more.

Those divets - or cavities, of which there are 48 in total - are described by the brand as 'vortex generators' and, in the words of the accompanying DT Swiss whitepaper, create "turbulent airflow on the surface that enables the air to stick to the rim shape of the front wheel. The result is a maximization of the sailing effect."

Here at Cyclingnews, we've spent the past 18 months testing bikes, tyres, wheels, and all manner of things in a lab setting, and when we tested the rolling resistance of two dozen tyres last year, we found that the Aero 111 was worse than its GP5000 S TR stablemate, and that immediately threw up a question.

Does the aero benefit outweigh the rolling resistance loss?

Therefore, during our recent trip to the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub, with the wind tunnel at our disposal and some time to spare at the end of a day of bike testing, it was time to put the Aero 111 under the microscope and try to find out.

The tests

Rolling resistance test

For the rolling resistance portion of our test, we used Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub's Pedalling Efficiency Rig.

This is a system that mounts a bike via the fork onto a large drum, which is printed with three road surfaces. For the purpose of this test, we used the 'smooth road' option, which is formed from a 3D scan of the road used in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games Time Trial.

It measures 'power in' at the pedals, and 'power out' at the drum. There's no aerodynamic component to measure, since the bike is fixed in position, and it is therefore able to measure total system loss - which generally comes from drivetrain friction, frame flex, and tyre rolling resistance - with incredible accuracy.

By then switching from one tyre to another, keeping all other variables (such as the bike, rider, tyre pressure and temperature) the same, and then measuring the total system loss again, it is able to calculate the difference between two tyres.

We tested at two speeds, nine and eleven metres per second (round numbers are easier to focus on as the rider), which equate to 32.4 and 39.6km/h.

We tested each tyre in a size 28mm, or the closest equivalent, which in the case of the Aero 111, was the 29mm.

Aerodynamics test

For the aerodynamic portion of this test, we used the cycling-specific low-speed wind tunnel, also at Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub, which allows you to test the aerodynamic drag at various yaw angles (the direction of the wind in relation to the bike, where 0° is a perfect headwind) at a chosen wind speed.

We tested at 40km/h, replicating our usual aero bike comparison tests. Our understanding is that riders interested in the Aero 111 are likely competing in road races or time trials, where average speeds often hover around this point.

The earlier-mentioned DT Swiss whitepaper suggests that the tyres offer improved performance at slower speeds too, but with limited wind tunnel time available, we opted to just test at the one speed that we felt is most relevant to these race-focussed readers in the Cyclingnews audience. More testing can be done, though, so if you'd like to see it, let us know.

We tested at seven different yaw angles: -15, -10, -5, 0, 5, 10 and 15°, again replicating our aero bike tests, because this is reflective of the wind angles most road racers and time triallists will experience in the real world. According to the research paper we use for calculating our weighted yaw averages, the probability of experiencing +20° or -20° yaw at 40km/h is only around one per cent, hence we choose to stop at 15°.

We tested with the bike alone to ensure maximum accuracy, given the expected small differences between each setup.

The results

In our rolling resistance test, we found a difference of 2.5 watts at 9m/s and 3.7 watts at 11m/s between the GP5000 S TR and Aero 111 tyres.

We don't have an exact number for the coefficient of rolling resistance, but we do know that Power = Mass x Gravity x Velocity (m/s) x CRR, so we can be confident that the growth will be linear as speed increases.

Therefore we can use the graph above to extrapolate the same setups at different speeds.

This shows us that the difference at 20km/h is approx 0.4 watts, and at 70km/h, it's just less than 9 watts.

Before we get into the aero data, we'll take a quick detour into the measured widths of each tyre tested in the wind tunnel, where interestingly, both of the Aero 111 tyres actually measured narrower than their nominally narrower GP5000 counterpart.

We measured each tyre three times at various points on the wheel and calculated the average.

Now for the aero data. Even though we only have a rolling resistance comparison for the 28mm GP5000 vs 29mm Aero 111, we chose to aero test the 25mm GP5000 and 26mm Aero 111 too. We'll focus more heavily on the 28 v 29 test, though.

If, at 40km/h, the Aero 111 is more than 3.7 watts faster than the respective GP5000 S TR, it's a no-brainer pick.

I'll start with the answer and work backwards, and hopefully the reasons for doing so become clearer below.

When we apply the same weightings used in our bike tests, we see that the 25mm GP5000 takes 66.29 watts to overcome the aerodynamic drag. The 26mm Aero 111 is marginally more aerodynamic. The 28mm GP5000 is slowest of all at 67.28, while interestingly, the 29mm Aero 111 is fastest of all.

This is likely because we used the Hunt 54_58 Aerodynamicist wheelset from Hunt, which are designed and optimised for use with wider tyres, featuring a front rim with a 31.7mm external width, 22mm internal, and hooked bead.

The differences, therefore, are as follows:

This tells us that, when using a protocol designed to reflect the real-world probability of seeing each yaw angle at 40km/h, the average wattage saving is just 1.23 watts for the wider tyre, and 0.29 watts for the narrower tyre.

With the 3.7w rolling resistance difference added back in, that's a net loss of 2.47 watts for the 29mm tyre. Therefore, based on this data alone, if you're looking to upgrade your GP5000 S TR to an Aero 111 for riding or racing around 40km/h, don't.

Next up, given the power (watts) required to overcome aerodynamic drag increases with the cube of speed, what if we take our aero drag and solve for higher speeds?

When we compare these savings with the extrapolated Rolling Resistance data above, we can see that even at 70km/h, the 6.62-watt aero saving isn't big enough to overcome the approximate almost-nine-watt loss.

There would be an inflection point, but at speeds well in excess of the averages that cyclists will be experiencing, and where the applied yaw angle weightings become less applicable.

It's worth noting that this isn't a scientifically perfect approach, and testing at each speed, rather than extrapolating, would have been the optimal way to get this data, but the aforementioned time constraints meant we were limited with our approach.

So what gives?

To try and understand what's happening here, let's take a step back and look at the raw data for each yaw angle.

It's interesting to see here that the drag of each wheel-tyre system is very similar at lower yaw (experienced more often at higher speeds), whereas at the higher 15° yaw angle, the two Aero 111 tyres both perform well, whereas the two GP5000 S TR tyres lag behind.

This shows that, at those higher yaw angles, the Aero 111 tyre helps the wheel to sail - essentially harnessing the wind to create 'lift' like an aeroplane's wing or the sail of a ship - as claimed by DT Swiss and Continental, effectively creating forward thrust and in turn reducing the aerodynamic drag.

It's impressive to see that a tyre is able to have this effect, but let's now quantify what that means in terms of watts saved for you in the real world.

Given the relative symmetry, I have averaged plus and minus 5°, 10°, and 15° to show that as the wind angle widens, the performance of the Aero 111 tyre improves.

It once again shows that the four tyres track reasonably close to each other until +/-10° yaw, and then at the 15° yaw, the two Aero 111 tyres come into their own.

Working out the differences between the Aero 111 and its similarly-sized GP5000 counterpart, we can see that the savings are essentially nonexistent at lower yaw, but grow to a saving of 8.68 watts at 15° for the 29mm.

Remember, this is still subject to the 3.7w rolling resistance penalty, equalling a net saving of 4.98w at this wind angle.

The problem here, though, is that the reason we - and aero experts - choose to apply yaw angle weightings at all, is because the likelihood of riding in 15° wind is incredibly low, and therefore, the likelihood of seeing the 4.98w benefit for any extended period of time is low too. The rest of your time riding will be spent at a deficit.

So once again, based on the data we have here, it's hard to recommend the Aero 111 as a worthwhile upgrade. In very niche circumstances it might work. For example, if your race is make-or-break in a strong crosswind, it might make sense to accept the penalty in favour of the high-yaw benefit. But more realistically, for all-round performance, the GP5000 S TR is the faster tyre.

Further testing needed

As ever, testing breeds more questions, and if Continental and DT-Swiss' claims about the tyre's ability to help a wheel sail at slower speeds are true and (as shown in our testing), can help the wheel to sail at shallower yaw angles too, we might see bigger aero savings at those slower speeds compared to the extrapolated data we have here from our test at 40km/h.

Those slower speeds would also increase the probability of experiencing those higher-yaw wind angles, too, so a bit of a double-whammy benefit.

What's more, 'slower' in this sense refers to wind speed, rather than ground speed. A rider in the shelter of a peloton might be riding at 50km/h, but, as a result of the shelter they're getting from the riders around them, the headwind created from their own movement is significantly reduced, once again increasing the possibility of spending time at higher yaw.

One of the other claims from DT Swiss and Continental is a more linear steering moment, which can possibly equate to greater stability in windier conditions, instilling confidence and, in turn, meaning the rider can stay in a more aero position for longer. That's harder to quantify, but a consideration worth including nonetheless.

These are all new hypotheses to chew over, though... a mission for 2026, perhaps.

It started with lunch, naturally. For those of us more used to a hasty meal deal eaten al desko, kicking off a factory tour with a three-course lunch of foie gras mousse, slow stewed beef casserole, and a lemon tart was quite the welcome. I was informed that the capacious cafeteria, set in the old factory building, was more for corporate entertainment rather than a true production line canteen, but it was hard to airbrush the image of sweat-streaked factory workers queuing up for a mille-fuille after several hours running a steam-driven vulcanisation press.

We’ve brought you several behind-the-scenes factory visits in recent years, including Miche wheels and the Colnago factory in Cambiago, but this is the first tyre brand we’ve lifted the lid on, so I’m going to play this with a relatively straight bat and go into the nuts and bolts of how a tyre is actually constructed. I was quite surprised to find it was in many ways more akin to clothing manufacture than the hardware we are more used to, but mixed in with a plethora of wonderfully vintage, often steamy machines and a laissez-faire attitude to machine guarding.

Hutchinson may not be the first brand you think of when it comes to tyres, but it has a storied history in not only the bicycle space but in automotive rubber, and even has origins as far back as the mid-1800’s producing vulcanised wellington boots with the Aigle brand. Now it produces over a million bicycle tyres a year in its French factory across road, gravel, and MTB. All of its high-performance options, like the Blackbird range and the Caracal gravel tyres, are made here, with lower-tier models produced in Asia.

• Best road bike tyres: Clinchers and tubeless tyres for cycling
• Best gravel bike tyres: Grippy, fast, and durable options for whatever gravel means to you

Everything is tacky

The first thing that hits you as you enter is the smell. Each part of the factory has a slightly different scent, from the almost acrid notes of the vulcanising presses to the more mellow initial rooms where the raw materials are prepared, but everything smells of hot rubber.

We began with the bead. Rolls of pale, almost translucent yellow aramid fibres are racked up on spools and fed in multiple strands through a coating machine that applies a thin rubber film to the outside, before they are cooled and re-spooled, now black, onto new rolls. This rubber coating is what is referred to as ‘the tack’, and is integral to the whole manufacturing process. It acts as a non-permanent glue, allowing the workers to position and re-position the individual components in the final layup, before everything is vulcanised together in the presses. Without it the tyre would delaminate and fall apart.

The casing fabric, too, gets the same treatment in a separate room. The brand uses either 60 or 120 TPI casing fabrics, plus the addition of various protective layers depending on the model, but these have their tack coating added on a century-old, steam powered machine mated to a modern feed. It’s quite the hybrid, one bedecked with digital screens and the other with exposed, grease-loaded gears and an unnerving warning of something radioactive - I didn’t ask.

On the loom, when we had a nose, was a roll of what looked like basic cotton fabric, and this was destined to be made into the airbags that form railway carriage suspension, the hulks of which were scattered across the factory at different stages of production.

This casing, much like non-woven carbon fibre, is very strong in one direction, but extremely prone to tearing in a perpendicular direction. As such, it is laid up in two or more layers – usually three – to allow the tyre carcass to resist failure across multiple orientations.

This casing, pre-layered up to the specifications of each tyre model, is then rolled up ready for formation into a whole tyre to be combined with the bead at a later point, along with a blank tread.

The raw tread and the three extruders

Three faded screw-drive extruders take care of the tyre tread. These, as the name suggests, use a powerful archimedes screw to physically drive the rubber compound out through an initial extrusion phase. Each tread can have up to three different compounds – broadly speaking, a hard, medium, and soft rubber depending on the position – with each extruder taking care of a single rubber compound, mixed to spec on site in a different and more secretive part of the factory.

The screw drives heat the rubber compounds up and allow them to be combined and forced through metal dies to create blank rubber treads; think of them as knob-less blanks, with the rubber in the right places (softer on the shoulders, harder in the centre usually), and with enough thickness to fill the voids in the tyre dies during the moulding process later on. Given these are rubber already, they don’t need the tack added, and are racked up after a cooling water bath to be formed onto a tyre carcass shortly.

Handmade by machines

The component parts of the tyre, those being the casing, bead, any puncture protection strips, and then the tread itself, are fed in converging streams onto a segmented drum. The tacky casing is laid down first, then the bead is fed onto the edges before a portion of casing is rolled over by an articulated section to seal it in. Then comes the puncture strip, if present, and then the tread itself.

It’s all very tactile, and while a lot of it is mechanised, the lion’s share is arranged by hand, almost entirely by women. They are, I am told, just more meticulous than men on the whole, which is key for passing the myriad internal QC tests we will get to shortly.

The finalised tyre blanks are then racked up, ready to go into the vulcanisation presses. Each press has a metal negative die of the tyre fitted to it, which clamps the blank in a steam-heated hydraulic press and, over the course of a few minutes, forces the now-vulcanising rubber into the voids to form the final tyre tread.

After a time, the presses automatically lift, revealing a final tyre, still steaming with the constituent parts now vulcanised together and as inseparable as the eggs, sugar, butter, and flour of a cake fresh out of the oven.

Several tyres from each run are then brought to the testing facility for a quite lengthy quality control procedure.

Testing, testing

A tyre has to do quite a lot without you even thinking about it. It must remain inflated, must not blow off the rim, must provide grip without offering up too much retardation to progress, and be resistant enough to abrasion to last several thousand kilometres at least. It must resist punctures and resist perishing within the lifespan of the product. All of these factors are tested in the lab, in an ante-room off the side of the production floor.

Air tightness is tested by inflating the tyre to its maximum recommended pressure and then measuring air loss after 24 hours, with a 20% reduction allowed. The tyres are also tested to 150% of their recommended pressure to assess their resistance to blowoff, on a rim that represents the least-compatible option while still remaining in-spec to ETRTO regulations. They’re then simply inflated until they explode off the same rim to see quite how much they can handle. I can’t say I recommend you try inflating a 40mm tyre to 8 bar on a hookless rim at home; it makes a hell of a bang.

In order to assess the tyre carcass’s resistance to delamination, a sample is placed on a metal wheel and spends 50 hours hitting a small bump on a roller to simulate approximately 2,500km of wear. A similar setup, with a tyre attached to a flywheel of known mass, is used as a proxy for rolling resistance, with the tyre spun up to a set speed and the run-down time measured after the motor is switched off.

The tyres are stabbed with one machine, and worn away with sandpaper with another to assess their durability, and yet more samples are placed, deflated, on rims in a tank flooded with an ozone atmosphere to accelerate the perishing process and assess the resistance thereof.

If any of these tests result in a failure, either of the internal spec or of the ETRTO standards, production can be stopped and the root cause hopefully identified.

Assuming everything is good, the tyres can then be packaged up and sold. A final learning to leave you with was Hutchinson's best practice for sealing tubeless punctures: Don't spin the tyre, just leave the hole at the bottom and allow gravity to do the work for you.

In the last few years, deep-section carbon wheelset overall weights have plummeted whilst retaining the same 50mm-plus depth and aero-optimised rim profiles.

It's not uncommon now to see deep, aero wheels with overall weights under 1,300 grams. A more widespread use of carbon fibre spokes is, in part, to thank for this.

Irish brand Scribe are the latest manufacturer to release carbon-spoked, aero and lightweight wheels in the form of its new Élan Ultra wheelset, which it claims to be 'amongst the most aero on the planet.' Also launching today alongside it is the Core Ultra range from the brand.

The Ultra Élan will be available in 50, and 65mm depths. The 50mm wheelset has a claimed overall weight of 1,149 grams, while the 65mm option comes in at a claimed 1,289; both are very competitive overall weights, in part achieved thanks to the unusual new OSL8 (oscillate) carbon fibre spokes.

Meanwhile, the aero steel spoked Ultra Core wheels will weigh in at 1,338 grams for the 50mm version and 1,486 grams for the 65mm deep version.

We tested the brand's existing Scribe Core 60 wheels in our CN Labs aero wheel test, and they performed very well against some bigger-name brands. We haven't tested the new wheels ourselves yet, but Scribe says the 65mm deep wheelset will be the fastest UCI-compliant wheelset available; it has provided some of its aero testing info too, which we've included below.

The Ultra Élan wheelset with new carbon fibre OSL8 spokes is priced at £1,999 / $2,599 / €2,299. And the Ultra Core with aero steel spokes is priced at £1,499 / $1999 / €1,699.

The Élan Ultra wheels use T1100 carbon fibre hooked rims, with a 24mm internal width and 32mm external. They use 20 spokes front and rear and are recommended for tyres from 28mm size up to 50mm.

Notably though, the spokes are unlike anything we've seen before. They were developed by Scribe in conjunction with Alpina spokes, and feature a 5.7mm profile in a flat bladed profile that oscillates, or 'waves' left and right.

Scribe says it found initially that an Alpina Aerolite spoke was slightly more aero than the 5mm carbon fibre spoke it was testing. The brand explained they loved the ride provided by the carbon spoke in testing, and the looks (which you can watch in the embedded video below), but that they were slightly slower.

Upon designing the new OSL8 spokes, which are 5.7mm wide, Scribe says they are the fastest bladed spokes when wind-tunnel tested - albeit competitors aren't names. When benchmarked against a flat 5mm carbon spoke, they found a gain of 0.5 watts at 0° yaw, 0.5 watts at 5° yaw, 0.4 watts at 10°, and 0.2 at 15°, each at 45 mm/h.

I asked the brand about their testing, which was carried out at the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub wind tunnel, and it told me that front-wheel-only testing was carried out with a 28mm Continental GP5000 tyre. The wheel used was the Scribe Core 60-D wheel.

The brand also confirmed that although they shouldn't need much truing, the carbon spokes could be trued easily if needed, which makes living with them a little easier.

The more affordable Ultra CORE wheelset uses steel-bladed Alpina spokes, but shares the same rim profile and hubs as the Élan Ultra.

Having done the annual hunt for Black Friday bike deals for many years now, there’s one thing I always look out for but never seem to find, and that’s a decent discount on the amazing Continental GP5000 S TR tyres. They never seem to be reduced by much, primarily because they’re perennially popular, and various lab tests - our own included - show that they’re basically the fastest road tyre on the market.

The good news, though, is that I’ve managed to unearth a whopping 40% off the Continental Archetype, a tyre derived from the GP5000 and made lighter and faster just for Tadej Pogačar to race on at the Tour de France this year.

Head straight to the deal here: 40% off Continental Archetype 30mm race tyre

The best deal here is reserved for UK readers only, courtesy of Sigma Sports, but we've found a smaller discount of 20% at Amazon for our US-based readers. although Sigma Sports will ship worldwide for an extra cost. They’re only available in a 30mm width, Pogačar's chosen size, but that’s becoming the norm now anyway for road use, especially as we’ve also proved that wider tyres are faster for nearly everyone.

Quick Black Friday links

USA: Quick Black Friday Deals

• Amazon: Black Friday Early Deals now live
• Rapha: 25% off cycling apparel sitewide
• Competitive Cyclist: Up to 40% off Holiday Sale
• Mike's Bikes: 25% off Wahoo Kickr Core $534.99 $399.99
• Specialized: $2000 off flagship Tarmac SL8
• Trek: Huge discounts on Lidl-Trek pro kit
• Canyon: Up to 50% off in 'stealth' sale

UK: Quick Black Friday Deals

• Amazon: Black Friday deals available already
• Rapha: 25% off cycling apparel sitewide
• Specialized: £1250 off Tarmac SL8 in Outlet Sale
• Sigma Sports: Sign up for early Black Friday access
• Balfe's Bikes: Up to 40% off road bikes
• Hunt: Up to 40% off road and gravel wheels
• Le Col: Up to 65% off clothing

In detail: Continental Archetype Black Friday deal

The Archetype is 35g lighter per tyre than the equivalent GP5000, with a more supple casing to reduce the rolling resistance further still. It does however still benefit from Continental’s legendary Black Chilli rubber compound, and uses the same tread pattern on the shoulders to maintain that class-leading cornering that we’ve all grown to love here at Cyclingnews.

If you’re still dead-set on the standard GP5000 I have some good news: for once they’re also on sale with a decent discount of up to 41% off, though only in specific sizes. If you want 30mm, then you’re better off sticking with the Archetype, as long as you can handle the potentially reduced durability. Sadly, for now at least, the deal is much better in the UK than in the US, though you can still pick em up at a knock down stateside.

In the industrial sprawl north of Indianapolis, in the heart of the American Midwest, a few miles north of the iconic oval Indianapolis Motor Speedway, a monolithic warehouse bears the giant red logo of US component manufacturing giant SRAM. Beside it is the more modest logo of its sister brand Zipp.

It's an ironic order of importance, as inside this vast, hangar-like space is one of the few places outside Asia making carbon bike components at scale. It’s here that Zipp’s Ride Ready SW and NSW wheelsets are made.

A few months ago, Cyclingnews was invited here to see a range of new products from SRAM and Zipp, including its 'smart wheels' and the chance to look firsthand at wheels being made in the flesh is too good to pass up.

Zipp owns facilities all over the world, and splits production between Portugal, Taiwan and Indianapolis. The factory here in Indianapolis, though, offers a rare end-to-end view of the entire wheel-building process, from order to shipping.

The process here not only offers very quick turnaround on road bike wheels, but also allows Zipp to be fully immersed in the production process, integrating it into design and R&D from the ground up.

“You can come up with the greatest ideas, but if somebody can’t make it in a reasonable time and with a reasonable skill set, it’s not a great design,” says Ruan Trouw, SRAM's Factory Engineering Manager, as we stand on the factory floor.

“We’ll typically set a lead time depending on current demand, but we strive to get it done the same day the order is placed – as long as it comes in at a reasonable time. We’ll move those orders through as they come; like you saw on the hour-by-hour chart, we plan the whole day based on customer orders. But for Ride Ready, they essentially jump the line – we get those rims to that specific cell and start building those wheels all the way through to boxing.”

We're being granted full access to all the facets of production, though in some parts of the facility, my camera was forbidden. Zipp has kindly provided its own pictures alongside ours to help illustrate the process.

Below, we outline as much as we can of the production from start to finish, and it all begins in giant freezers…

Vittoria has finally released its new Terreno Pro gravel tyre range today. The new tyres use a new greener construction that Vittoria claims results in tyres that still perform better than previous versions.

The Terreno Pros are said to be 5% faster, and deliver 19% more grip and 17% more puncture resistance than the existing Terreno Endurance range, which sits below the new 'Pro' line.

These new, distinctive all brown tyres have been floating around for a while. We first got a glimpse of the brown construction at the start of the year at the Icebike trade show. And you also may have seen various pro riders, including Tom Pidcock racing on them at the recent Gravel World Championships in the Netherlands.

It's also a good time to mention the recently upgraded Vittoria gravel tyre grading system, or 'T-Score', which launched in April. The brand streamlined its gravel tyre offerings, and all tyres now carry the Terreno name, but have a numbered 'T-score' so you can work out what terrain each model is for. For instance, the Terreno T10 is for hardpack, and at the other end of the scale, the T90 (previously the Terreno wet) is for mud and more extreme off road use.

For now, the new Terreno Pro tyres will be available in T10, 30, 50, and 60 models in 35-45mm sizes, with the brand promising more to come in the future. Apparently, these sizes were the ones used by pro riders.

All tyres have a current MSRP of $103.99 each. Only gravel tyres are available at the moment, but it seems that Vittoria wants to move in this direction in the future. Some of the best road bike tyres, like the Vittoria Corsa Pro's could be brown in the future.

The Terreno Pros are constructed from 92% renewable and recyclable materials, according to Vittoria. Bicycle and tyre car production is not particularly environmentally friendly for a variety of reasons, and it seems Vittoria is taking steps to introduce a greener product and manufacturing process.

Vittoria CEO and Chairman Stijn Vriends explained the company's direction of travel.

"This is the future. And we’re laying down the track so everyone can ride toward it. As a company, we want natural brown tyres to become the norm in a few years, while the old-school black ones, with carbon black, start to look outdated."

The mention of carbon black in the CEO's statement outlines what Vittoria is trying to do with the Terreno Pro. Carbon black is an additive used in tyre production, and is also the reason tyres are black in colour. Omitting carbon black is more environmentally friendly.

Vittoria has used an organic cotton casing for these tyres, and they use nylon from discarded fishnets. Taiwanese company Formosa Taffeta produces Seawastex, a recycled nylon derived from old fishing nets, which is used by several tyre companies, including Maxxis and Schwalbe. A natural latex coating also offers extra puncture protection and flexibility without chemicals.

Elsewhere, there is natural rubber that is Fair Rubber certified. Fair Rubber aims to give a better deal to the people who grow and produce the material. Soybean oil and rice husk ash silica are also used in construction.

Vittoria also has a factory in Thailand that is CarbonNeutral® operations-certified. The factory uses renewable electricity for production and offsets any other emissions.

Vittoria mentions a 'long-standing taboo' when it comes to the way the potential combination of performance tyres and sustainability is viewed. And there may be some truth in this.

Many of us probably don't stop to consider environmental impacts when shopping for the fastest tyres we can find or even perceive greener, or partially recycled tyres to somehow be less premium, but perhaps starting with a gravel range, and having some of the world's best race on them, will help usher in a new, greener chapter for road and gravel tyres.