According to figures published by Domestique Cycling, the average Men’s WorldTour budget for 2026 has climbed to €33 million – a 4.5% increase on 2025 – while the median salary for a self-employed rider now sits at €350,000, up 5.6%. Domestique’s analysis, drawing on information from La Gazzetta dello Sport and newly released UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) accounts, suggests total WorldTour spend will exceed €663 million next season, with the biggest teams nudging €45–50 million a year.

These are extraordinary numbers. Small by football standards, perhaps, but eye-watering in the world of cycling.

At the same time, the price of a so-called "WorldTour-level" bike continues its steady, unapologetic march upwards. £15,000 bikes, £350 helmets, £500 shoes, bib shorts that cost a week’s wages. That’s a tough sell, even before you get to the cost-of-living crisis most of us are living through.

According to UCI rules, everything raced in the WorldTour peloton must be made commercially available to the public. Yet the bikes are designed for conditions and speeds you and I will never see. That disconnect only grows with every passing season, but the sport’s governing body continues to insist on this model.

Brands like Specialized understand the tension and don’t even try to hide it. The Aethos exists precisely because of it. It's not raced at the WorldTour level, yet it's a better bike for more of us, and fit data from its own customers supports that assertion. Still, the UCI requires brands to sell the WorldTour bike as well, effectively locking them into marketing narratives that insist the pro bike is “better,” even when it often isn’t.

None of this matters much if you’re choosing between a $13,500 S-Works Tarmac SL8 and an equally expensive S-Works Aethos. That’s a rarefied problem. At the grassroots level, however, the mismatch between pro bikes and real-world riding becomes impossible to ignore.

At the grassroots end of the sport, if entry into the sport doesn’t already feel pretty difficult for most people, the unsustainable nature of the situation will kill it eventually.

And that is the uncomfortable truth at the heart of professional cycling’s funding model: pro racing is funded by selling extremely expensive, increasingly irrelevant products to ordinary riders.

Once seen as a working-class pursuit, cycling now sits culturally alongside golf, a sport associated with expense and status. On any given club ride, you'll see bikes that cost more than my current car. If you don’t believe the problem is real, call your local club and ask what gear you need to get started. In some corners of the sport, we’ve completely lost our minds with the perception of what a good road bike is.

And yes, we, the media, are culpable, too. A quick glance at my own reviews from the past year reveals how troublesome our role in all this is: most of the kit I’ve praised is equipment I couldn’t afford on my journalist’s wage. Not now. Probably not ever.

The thirst for cash from all corners of the cycling world is exponential at this point. The technological demands of WorldTour teams with access to these budgets are insatiable. The best teams will always find the money. But the funding model – where brands like Specialized or ENVE, sponsor teams in the hope of recouping that investment through bike and component sales – is, truly, the only game in town.

Yes, ENVE sells an awful lot of wheelsets off the back of Tadej Pogačar’s success. But does its outwardly similar sponsorship of teams like TotalEnergies translate into enough sales to justify the expense there? The switch in the team's equipment sponsorship in 2026 suggests it doesn't.

If a sponsorship deal doesn’t sell product, it doesn’t pay for itself. And when that happens, brands have only three options: raise prices, reduce support or walk away. None of those outcomes are healthy for the sport.

Some sponsorship does come from outside cycling, of course. But with fans growing tired of green- and human-rights-washing, those sponsorships tend to come with a PR problem.

Add in the fact that TV coverage of racing is increasingly paywalled and fewer people are able to afford the bikes the sport depends on, and professional cycling is now structurally dependent on a shrinking, increasingly affluent audience.

An influencer I follow recently shared photos of his "humble" bike build, with the content framed around the idea that you don’t need much to ride a big event. A worthy idea. The bike was equipped with a 12-speed GRX drivetrain. Just the groupset retails at £999.99. In what world is a multi-thousand-pound build using the latest mechanical tech considered humble? We frequently reinforce the same distortion in our own reviews, and while that may be what the audience expects, it quietly resets the baseline of what 'normal' looks like.

We’ve painted ourselves into a corner. Pro-level development is funded by consumers buying the same bikes and components. But those consumers aren’t blue-collar workers anymore; they’re bankers, consultants and hedge-fund managers; and even that market has limits.

As budgets rise, product complexity follows. As complexity rises, so do prices. And the spiral continues, pushing the sport ever further out of reach for normal people.

Road racing still hasn’t defined what it actually delivers commercially.

This is where a recent LinkedIn post by Peter Coyle (Peter C. on Linked In), an independent sports marketing and brand management consultant, is worth paying attention to. Building on Domestique Cycling’s budget analysis, Coyle makes a simple but uncomfortable point: road racing still hasn’t defined what it actually delivers commercially.

He notes that cycling remains overwhelmingly dependent on sponsorship, with teams receiving nothing from media rights, limited collective commercialisation and very little insulation from cost pressures.

For decades, the sport justified this through product trickle-down, or the idea that what the pros rode would filter into showroom bikes and drive consumer demand.

Formula 1 ran this experiment years ago but abandoned it, as it admitted: modern race technology doesn’t actually, meaningfully, trickle down. As a result, F1 is no longer a product R&D platform. It’s a brand play. Racing builds brand value, not road cars, and it's never been more popular.

Cycling, Coyle argues, is drifting the same way, whether it likes it or not. But that’s where the conversation gets really interesting.

What if the pro cycling model shifted?

The fundamental difference between F1 and WorldTour cycling is the scale of technology. An F1 car is so far removed from a consumer car that no one seriously expects to buy one and drive one around town. A top-spec race bike, however, still sits awkwardly close to the consumer market. They are usually the exact same thing.

But what if they weren’t? Here's an idea for the UCI: ban selling WorldTour bikes to the public. Imagine a WorldTour where cutting-edge technology is developed, raced, refined and deliberately kept out of the consumer market for a defined period. A technology lock.

Fans watch the best riders in the world push the limits, knowing they’re seeing something genuinely elite. Meanwhile, the bikes sold to the public are capped at a previous generation of technology – still brilliant, still fast, but no longer pulled upward by the increasingly irrelevant and otherworldly needs of the pro peloton.

Even brilliant bikes like the Cervelo R5 and Colnago V5RS – amazing road bikes if you can afford or fit on one – are irrelevant to the pros now, who are opting for faster, more aerodynamic models. You'll still see them at a WorldTour race, but they currently live in the team truck, trotted out for the final stage, to claw back some of the money spent on their development through some sales.

In a couple of seasons' time, the climbing bike won't even make it to the race, yet its comparatively skinnier tubes make for a much better consumer offer. Still, the marketing will tell us it's not the bike we need.

It's a broken system.

Break the link and make it mean something again

Detaching the link between product and brand works in F1, but it also works in motorcycling. Moto GP bikes cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The same applies in Motocross. The bike you buy from the racing brand, the one you buy off the showroom floor, is not even nearly the same as the one the pros ride.

Instead, it’s designed as a product to be sold at scale and ridden by normal folk. It costs a fraction of the price, it's better suited to that rider, and, crucially, it's not updated every season.

Imagine this: as the changes bed in, your wealthy mate rolls up to the Sunday ride on a stunning new bike. It’s not Tadej’s machine — you still can’t buy that — but it is the best available. And for the first time in years, it’s no longer completely out of reach for you, either.

In this context, we could operate in a world where product lifecycles could be extended. Development costs could then be amortised over more years, just as they are in motorcycles and automotive.

Brands wouldn’t have to fight every season for more marginal gains that no consumer asked for. Prices in bike shops could stabilise, especially as competition from Asia ramps up. The "top-spec" bike of its era becomes more attainable over time, not less. The more people can afford to participate, the more level the playing field feels.

Central to all of this is that teams stop behaving like sales tools for manufacturers (the OEMs) and start behaving like their own brands. They sell access, story, identity and fandom.

The pro bike becomes the halo part of that ecosystem, not the cash cow. And we all ride around on very nice bicycles that carry our favourite brand marks, but that are instead designed for us.

Whats stopping us from doing all this? And what about brands outside of the WorldTour?

There’s an obvious hole in all of this. Pro-level technology is visible. Independent manufacturers, particularly in Asia, are already producing high-performance gear at lower prices. What’s to stop them from copying what they see in the WorldTour and selling it anyway?

Nothing. And that’s fine.

WorldTour brands would, understandably, argue that it isn’t fine at all, given the time, money and R&D they invest only to see ideas replicated. But that doesn’t make it impossible if manufacturers are willing. Intellectual property has always been vulnerable in any competitive industry.

But let's be honest, ENVE isn’t struggling to sell premium wheels because Asian copycats exist. In the same way, Formula 1 hasn’t prevented hundreds of manufacturers with no connection to F1 from building fast hatchbacks or even other race cars, and MotoGP hasn’t stopped excellent sports bikes being made by brands outside elite racing.

What participation at the top end of sport really buys isn’t exclusive access to technology, it’s brand value. Prestige. Authenticity. The halo effect. WorldTour involvement is a marker of legitimacy, not a monopoly on performance. Others can enter the market, innovate and offer value. The teams and brands at the top retain the story of being there – and that story still sells.

The problem is that the entire system is funded by selling WorldTour bikes to ordinary riders. Now sold around the assumption that everyone wants, and can afford, a £15,000 bike.

That is illogical. It is unsustainable for teams to depend on OEMs (the equipment manufacturers) who depend on selling ever more expensive, increasingly irrelevant products to ever fewer people.

If that isn’t addressed, cycling will continue to drift further from its audience. And at some point, people will simply go and do something cheaper, easier and more welcoming instead. When that happens, who exactly is left to pay for Remco’s golden shoes?

Tailfin is a British design company specialising in "high-performance bikepacking equipment that allows cyclists to create incredible adventures."

With an extensive range of products that consistently receive strong reviews here at Cycling Weekly, Tailfin is one of those rare brands that genuinely delivers on its brand promise.

Since its arrival on the scene, Tailfin has quickly built a reputation for creating genuinely interesting products. It's products often move the needle in terms of market expectations and possibilities, a feat achieved through engineering excellence as much as clever branding and strong storytelling.

For its latest creation, its engineers have set about rethinking the humble water bottle boss. This is no mean feat, given the many brands that have attempted to innovate in this space, often retreating back to simpler, tried-and-tested solutions which mount to standard bosses, or use normal cages.

The best water bottle cages are pretty simple, and they secure a bottle exceptionally well. We see a ton of Elite cages on bikes in WorldTour races and right down the ranks more than almost any other brand. Tacx, Specialized, and others also do a cracking job, but their designs are inherently similar.

For gravel and adventure riding, the requirement is not just about the cage, it's also about where you put it and how many you can get on the bike.

Need space on your bike for a can of Fanta, or even a tube of Pringles? Enter Tailfin's newest solution, the HydroMount. This tiny yet versatile mount allows riders to run water bottles, cargo cages, and more, anywhere on their bike frame – no bottle bosses required. It essentially adds new bosses wherever you want them.

With a retail price of just £20 / $28 / €25 (2-strap Base version) and £25 / $35 / €30 (3-strap Full version), the HydroMount is Tailfin’s lowest-priced product to date. The company says it hopes this will "open the brand to everyday riders, commuters, gravel riders, and bikepackers alike."

While road cyclists have plenty of existing mounts for all a rider might need, gravel and adventure riding is an entirely different beast. The HydroMount solves the simple but common problem of not having enough bottle cage mounts, especially on small frames, older bikes, full-suspension rigs, or simply on gravel bikes where an extra mount is needed for additional gear.

Where many strap-on solutions look improvised, unstable, and risk damaging frames, the HydroMount builds on Tailfin's proven V-Mount technology to deliver a clean, purpose-built alternative that it claims, looks and performs like an integrated part of the bike.

When the press release landed, we were struck by the photography, which showed just how many bottles one bike could carry.

Overkill? Perhaps for the road. But if the device holds a bottle (or other items) securely and doesn't damage your paint, this is a welcome solution to the problem many face on long trips: being unable to fit anything else on their setup. It might also be especially useful for making a standard road bike or all road model that little bit more practical.

The device has a load capacity of 1kg with two straps or 1.5kg with three, and uses standard 64mm bottle cage mounting holes. This allows you to fit your choice of bottle cage, boss-mounted luggage, a bento box, or whatever else might fit.

All Tailfin products come with a 5-year warranty and they also offer a crash replacement discount of 30% should the worst happen.

We have a HydroMount in hand and I've been riding it on my gravel test bikes since Christmas; so far, it has worked flawlessly. I will compile a full review in the next couple of weeks and provide an update after thorough testing.

Stop right there. Before anyone orders carbon rims the size of penny-farthings, road wheels are not getting bigger. Not to 32 inches. Not now, not ever.

Yes, tyre brands are messing around with prototypes. Yes, a few prototype bikes have appeared and leaked on Instagram; yes, the message boards are alive with rumours; and no doubt, someone, somewhere, has murmured “performance potential”. But the road cycling world has already looked at the idea, squinted, rolled its collective eyes, and moved on to something more useful instead.

The physics just don’t work for the road or gravel. I’d argue the idea is questionable at best in MTB.

Making a wheel bigger weakens it, unless you widen the axle to compensate. Road bikes already use 142mm spacing to accommodate disc brakes and the gears we think we need. Freehub, hub, cassette, chainstay geometry and drivetrain design are all governed by that standard.

Widening axles could theoretically give bigger wheels the strength they need, and yes, that would excite drivetrain manufacturers. Suddenly, there would be room for a new freehub, new cassette, new drivetrains - brilliant things to sell us. But for riders on tarmac, or even gravel? Zero benefit. Only extra weight, complexity, and cost.

What 32-inch really means

A 32-inch wheel is roughly ten percent larger in diameter than a 700c wheel. That’s not a tweak. Fork length, headtube length and stack, trail, reach, and clearance all change. Mountain bikes with long, high, raked out front ends and suspension can absorb this; road bikes cannot – more importantly, they just don’t need to.

Road and gravel bikes do not have a rollover problem. Roads are smooth. Wider tyres and lower pressure already handle the kind of bumps, drains, potholes, and speed humps we encounter perfectly well. The touted “rollover advantage” is completely meaningless on tarmac.

Furthermore, our road bikes are already fully loaded at the front; you only need to look at the numbers and what they're coping with. The headtubes are already a packaging marvel.

Internal cable routing, oversized and now internally integrated bearings, integrated stems, disc brake hoses, aero profiling (making them ever wider and narrower at the same time), and wider tyres, all compete for space at the front end, with the invisible hand of stack height bearing down on the space available. There simply isn’t much vertical real estate to package a larger wheel without compromising geometry, fit, handling and even aero.

Need proof? Let's see some numbers. On a flagship road bike like the Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL8, the progression from small to reasonably sized frames in 44cm to 52cm, and then to 56cm, shows how little head tube/stack there already is.

The smallest 44cm frame has just 99mm to play with. Ok, that’s very small, and you’re into more restrictive limits when you need enough area to attach a top tube and downtube to the front triangle. But a 52cm frame has a 126mm head tube for a stack height of 527mm. Even a 56cm frame (medium to large and bang average in the European market) isn’t roomy and offers only 163mm of head tube for a stack height of 565mm.

This demonstrates how small the front end is on an aggressive race bike. Whilst 44cm might be an outlier, 52cm isn’t small in the run of things, and a large number of pro riders will be on frames that size, not to mention half of Asia, where a 56cm frame is unusual.

Pro-rider, Remco Evenepoel, is 171cm tall and races on a 52cm S-Works Tarmac SL8 – arguably sized down for a rider of his size. In this situation, his position uses every millimetre of available head tube, reach, and bar drop, leaving no room for a larger fork and front wheel package. Is Remco or a pro like him really going to size up, push his position into the wind, and compromise his fit for an extra-large wheel? No, of course not.

The front-end geometry problem

Even if we suspend disbelief for a moment, the geometry headaches arrive immediately. A 32-inch wheel requires a longer fork for clearance, which lifts the front of the bike and pushes the steering away from the rider. Designers are then faced with some unappealing choices: either increase the reach, or trail, or keep the reach the same but increase toe-overlap.

Some toe overlap is necessary in a fast road race bike at certain frame sizes, allowing wheelbases and steering geometry that are desirable in that context. Few pro riders stop at lights or perform U-turns, so the presence of some toe-overlap in and of itself isn’t a big problem. A 32-inch wheel brings toe-overlap to levels that just aren’t manageable, and on smaller frame sizes, the steering would need to be pushed forward anyway, simply to avoid conflict with the down tube.

Larger wheels also add rotational mass and stronger gyroscopic forces. Fine on technical terrain, but on smooth tarmac, acceleration and responsiveness suffer. Handling dulled, cornering made harder. The frontal area is also increased, impacting aerodynamics, and whilst the depth of the rims might help, you’re compensating rather than gaining an advantage.

Gravel is not the Trojan horse through which 32 will arrive

Gravel bikes might seem like the perfect testing ground for a new MTB standard: relaxed geometry, high-volume tyres, and loads of clearance. But they, too, do not have a rollover problem. Toe overlap exists. Front centres are short, as are headtubes. Drop bars limit steering adaptations. All these problems get harder again on smaller frames.

A gravel bike functions because of the existing standards, not in spite of them.

The 32-inch wheel might sound like a fun errand in the pursuit of another marginal gain. But it’s not a marginal change to your bike. If bigger wheels need wider axles, we need new hubs, and then new groupsets.

You can see why making it work might be compelling in a mountain bike market where suspension systems and geometry might have reached a consensus. Why would customers rush out to buy the new version if it’s only been tweaked, or if it has ever more electric gizmos no one asked for? If a benefit can be established for a standard that affects the whole system and its components, it opens the floodgates to a generation of new mountain bikes. In road cycling, that’s just not going to happen. Not because of the arrival of 32-inch wheels at least.

Road and gravel cycling categorically do not need bigger wheels. The increase in diameter compromises fit, handling, weight and established standards, for absolutely no benefit.

Mountain bikes may find a niche, and custom bikes can accommodate outsize riders who I fully accept can benefit from smaller and larger wheel options. But for the mainstream, on road and gravel? No.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Specialized has today launched a new race kit in partnership with Red Bull–Bora–hansgrohe, and both claim to have gone further than most brands in the pursuit of performance gains.

Rather than simply tweaking colours and logos, it says it's completely reengineered the kit from the ground up. The headline result? According to Specialized, it’s some 25 watts faster.

Taken at face value, that’s astonishing. It’s also a hell of a press release number – the kind that makes you sit up, spit out your coffee, and read on. Which, of course, is exactly what it’s designed to do. Big wattage claims are marketing gold in cycling, but they’re also worth a little gentle interrogation.

To put that 25-watt figure into context, last year Cyclingnews put the Cervélo S5 in the wind tunnel. It was the fastest aero bike the site has ever tested with a rider onboard, and it was found to be some 27.6 watts faster than the baseline bike. That baseline, it should be noted, was a ten-year-old rim-brake road bike they happened to have lying around. In other words: about as aerodynamic as my Christmas belly is today, after ten days of mince pies and round-the-clock snacking.

The idea that a jersey alone could deliver 25 watts of savings is, by any reasonable measure, impressive.

Now, before you sprint to the nearest Specialized concept store, it’s worth clarifying what’s actually being claimed. The 25-watt figure applies when comparing the new team race jersey to Specialized’s SL jersey, not to last year’s team kit. If you currently ride in a 2025 pro issue team jersey, you’re likely saving around five watts on the ride home wearing the new version.

Still, in a sea of recent pro team kit launches where many have opted for just new colours or a new supplier altogether, five watts is not to be sniffed at. In fact, taken on its own, it’s a genuinely impressive and far more relevant claim.

The claimed performance gains come courtesy of Specialized’s proprietary SlipLayer aero fabric, which they say is custom-woven for maximum aerodynamic performance and arranged in a “kinetic pattern that moves like a second skin”. We’ve also spotted some clever trips on the sleeves, seemingly designed to work with the rider in position rather than simply running parallel to the arms.

A reduction in panels and seams suggests the fabric’s ability to conform closely to the rider’s shape has been improved and, therefore, further exploited than in the outgoing version.

Taken together, these details add up. This is the modern approach to aerodynamics: marginal gains delivered through incremental changes to cut, fabric, seam placement, and surface texture that combine into something far more meaningful overall. We’ve seen the same philosophy play out in frame design over the last season or two – notwithstanding Factor’s more revolutionary design in their One platform – and it’s encouraging to see that level of detail and incremental work applied to clothing.

Coming full circle to that original headline claim, what’s genuinely interesting here is the broader implication. Fit, cut, seams, fabric choice, and sleeve treatment clearly have a huge impact on aero performance.

The SL jersey – the one against which the big numbers in the headline are measured – is a decent balance of forgiving-ish fit, practicality and high performance for most of us, and is actually similar to the “standard fit” jerseys many riders will already own. If you’re interested in big aero gains, maybe you’ve even shelled out on an aero bike or deep-section wheels, but you’re still riding a versatile jersey like the SL, this may well be the nudge you need to grab something specialist and dump some serious watts.

There is another caveat, however. Specialized also understands that not all of us are honed, 60kg racing snakes. That’s very important in this slippery context.

That doesn’t mean there’s no fun to be had. Some riders simply want the look, especially when the race version may not fit – or function – particularly well in the real world.

With that in mind, Specialized has also launched a replica version for the full-kit fan. It’s nearly as technical and shares the same performance aims, so you can expect a close fit, though it makes no aero-performance claims of its own. It features a knowingly stretch-fitted front panel, a breathable back, and an extra pocket for your phone or spare tube, bringing the total to three. It also offers SPF30 sun protection, which the pro-race version notably does not.

So yes: the race version - that the team wore when it launched a glider in a publicity stunt last year - is definitely faster than your old baked-bean-era jerseys, and Specialized says it’s 25 watts faster than the already excellent SL jersey, so there’s big gains to be made there. If you’re lucky enough to fit it.

If you are already running the outgoing team kit and want to upgrade to the latest design to match Remco Evenepoel's exact kit, we expect the new one to be around 5 watts faster.

The main takeaway? Team kits are loads of fun, and if you’re chasing aerodynamic gains, a closely fitting, aero optimised race jersey may well be a bigger upgrade than an aero bike, and at a fraction of the cost.

It’s hard to pick a favourite part of the UK, but if I were forced to choose, I’m pretty sure it’d be the North Pennines - the rugged upland area straddling County Durham, Northumberland and Cumbria, between the Lake District to the west and the Yorkshire Dales to the south. It’s a magical place that feels untouched, wild and enticing, and it’s packed with climbs of every flavour: long and shallow, short and savage, one after another in relentless succession. There are more killer ascents concentrated here than almost anywhere else in the country - up, down, and up again - a true hill-climbing boot camp.

They may not be quite as brutal as the giants of our previous two ‘Ultimate Climbs Guide’ editions, the Conwy Valley or the North York Moors, but they come close. Case in point: the dreaded, wind-lashed Chapel Fell which, despite the godly name, is evil by nature, with a devilish headwind always waiting. And then there’s the silence. It’s so still it feels like riding through the set of 28 Days Later - except instead of zombies, it’s just you, the road, and a few wandering sheep in some of the most achingly beautiful scenery in Britain.

For this feature, I tackled the shorter of the two routes below, joined by photographer Andy Jones - so it’s this circuit that’s described in greater detail.

Shorter Route: the Weardale Wear-Down

Distance: 84km (52 miles)

Elevation: 2,242m (7,355ft)

Setting off from Stanhope, you’re afforded only about a mile of flat road before you reach the wonderful hairpins of Unthank Bank. This means zero chance for a warm-up before getting stuck into what is an almost unrelenting barrage of climbs. Between Stanhope and Middleton-in-Teesdale, the road rises and falls three times, crossing the stunning Bollihope Common.

Once in Weardale, there’s an all-too-brief passage of relatively flat road before it’s time for the next monster climb, up and across Newbiggin Common. This near-6km ascent kicks up early on, but soon settles to a steadier gradient as you cut through the blissful solitude of the immaculate scenery. The North Pennines never disappoint but under clear skies they excel themselves - there’s genuinely nowhere better to ride in England.

Rolling down the other side of the ridge, you arrive in Westgate to take on the steepest climb of the ride and of the whole area, the dreaded Peat Hill. The sign says 20%, but it’s certainly steeper, especially around the 90° bend as you exit the village, where it ramps up to at least 25%. This abrupt corner is far from the top, and you have to push on for a long way before turning left to descend White Edge and immediately climb back up Middlehope Bank before then dropping once more down Well Bank into Ireshopeburn.

Turning right here, there’s a brief interlude to the constant climbing and descending, but then the gradient begins to creep up again through Wearhead as you head towards Allenheads. There’s a short kicker with a couple of wonderful hairpins out of Allenheads, after which you can relax for a bit on the long fast descent towards Rookhope.

It’s time for Cuthbert’s Hill - not the steepest but the most exquisitely quiet road. Once over the top, the passage between here and Blanchland is simply sensational. If I ever find myself on a psychiatrist’s couch being encouraged to find my ‘happy place’, this will be it. It is peace and serenity personified...

Descending from nirvana, it’s time to head to the T-junction just north of Blanchland and turn right back to Stanhope via the 2.5km Bale Hill. This is the final climb, so get it all out of your legs before the long, fast descent through Crawleyside to finish.

LONGER ROUTE: CHAPEL HELL

Distance: 128km (80 miles)

Elevation: 3,051m (10,009ft)

Again starting and finishing in Stanhope, you’re treated to a gentle beginning along the banks of the River Wear before hitting one of the toughest climbs in the UK - a true 10/10 monster, Chapel Fell. An almost inevitable headwind makes life yet harder as you grind up and over England’s highest pass before hurtling down the other side to join the long ascent of Yad Moss to the ski slopes at the top.

Once over the peak, drop down into Alston, where there are many amenities and cafes, perfect for a stop at 42km. From here, it’s on to Nenthead, but instead of climbing the full length of Killhope Cross, the route heads north into even quieter scenery, looping via Allenheads to return to Weardale.

Now it’s time to take on the climb of Well Bank before dropping into Weardale once again to begin the second part of a giant figure of eight. If your legs are complaining, you can turn left and head home. If you want more, which of course you will, ride up Swinhope Head, down into Newbiggin, and turn left up the vicious Miry Lane. Return via Middleton-in-Teesdale and Bollihope Common to finish the ride in Stanhope.

Key Information

Where to stay Stanhope makes for the perfect base, with amenities including a Co-op to fuel your ride. There are numerous cottages and B&Bs in Stanhope and surrounding villages such as Crawleyside.

Food and drink For evening meals, we recommend the Pack Horse Inn and the Grey Bull Bunkhouse in Stanhope. There’s also the Baker’s Loaf, the Pizza Barn and the Roots of India takeaway.

What else to see and do Head to the Durham Dales Centre in Stanhope for local crafts and food, as well as the historic stone bridge across the river Wear. Further afield, there’s the Killhope Lead Mining Museum, the Weardale Railway and the stunning 21m-high High Force waterfall in Forest-in-Teesdale.

10 best climbs in the North Pennines

1. Chapel Fell

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/6678141
KOM: Andrew Feather, 11.38
QOM: Fiona Snook, 15.31
Length: 3,940m
Elevation: 320m
Average gradient: 8%
Max gradient: 16%

The evil Chapel Fell is a near-4km-long leg destroyer that boasts ramps of 16% and a seemingly permanent headwind. It’s also the highest pass in England at an altitude of 628m.

2. Swinhope Head

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/2046459
KOM: Jack Crook, 15.14
QOM: Josie Rawes, 22.00
Length: 5,497m
Elevation: 318m
Average gradient: 5%
Max gradient: 15%

Chapel Fell’s close neighbour Swinhope Head is longer at 5.5km, but the summit is some 20m lower in altitude and with the extra distance, the climb isn’t as tough on the legs.

3. Peat Hill

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/16337663
KOM: Andrew Feather, 9.39
QOM: Olivia French, 13.39
Length: 3,547m
Elevation: 262m
Average gradient: 7%
Max gradient: 25%

This climb is a killer with a truly vicious beginning as it squeezes through the houses in Westgate into a series of 20-25% ramps with ever steeper corners. The final two thirds are pretty gentle.

4. Cuthbert's Hill

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/16337567
KOM: William Marston, 6.48
QOM: Olivia French, 8.39
Length: 2,759m
Elevation: 150m
Average gradient: 5%
Max gradient: 20%

This is my favourite of the climbs in the area, as it just feels so wild and remote. It’s tough, with a maximum gradient of 20% hidden along its near-3km-long narrow scar of twisting tarmac.

5. Bale Hill

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/19601504
KOM: Tom Harcourt, 5.28
QOM: Naomi Palmer, 7.16
Length: 2,471m
Elevation: 190m
Average gradient: 7%
Max gradient: 20%

Bale Hill is a beauty of a road with some killer 20% gradients thrown in. The climbing is split into two halves with a gap in the middle to let you recover before heading onto the summit.

6. Well Bank

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/19601273
KOM: Kiki Savadog, 7.35
QOM: Olivia French, 11.28
Length: 2,263m
Elevation: 213m
Average gradient: 9%
Max gradient: 18%

Another wicked ramp, Well Bank heads up out of Weardale, with nasty 20% slopes and tight bends on its lower slopes before easing into its steady journey to the tranquillity of its summit.

7. Unthank Bank

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/16337692
KOM: Niall Paterson, 7.35
QOM: Olivia French, 10.05
Length: 3,024m
Elevation: 187m
Average gradient: 6%
Max gradient: 17%

Heading south out of Stanhope, Unthank Bank is home to two of the best hairpins in England, and it’s here you’ll find a brace of steep bends that will have you dreaming of the Alps.

8. Miry Lane

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/16097108
KOM: Tom Harcourt, 3.05
QOM: Naomi Palmer, 4.09
Length: 779m
Elevation: 101m
Average gradient: 12%
Max gradient: 18%

A nasty little road with a demanding 12% average that drags you out of Newbiggin so as to ride the quiet road to Middleton instead of the B6277 - it’s worth making the effort for.

9. Newbiggin Common

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/19601453
KOM: Andrew Feather, 15.31
QOM: Emma Matthews, 20.08
Length: 5,801m
Elevation: 338m
Average gradient: 5%
Max gradient: 10%

Heading north out of Newbiggin, this is another of the giant North Pennine passes. Not as steep or as high as some but with more altitude gain than any others listed here - a real monster.

10. Bollihope Common

Strava segment: strava.com/segments/19601432
KOM: Matthew Holmes, 9.35
QOM: Emel Bagdatlioglu, 12.06
Length: 3,607m
Elevation: 228m
Average gradient: 6%
Max gradient: 20%

This is a sensational road through idyllic rolling grasslands. The route south is my preferred option - with a short 20% ramp and breath taking views all around.

The 2025 Tour de France saw 3320km of racing and 51500m of climbing.

The overall winner, Tadej Pogačar of Team UAE Emirates-XRG and Jonas Vingegaard of Visma-lease a Bike, have at their disposal two dedicated aero bikes and two lighter climbing frames. Pogačar has access to the aero Colnago Y1RS, and the lighter weight, less aero, V5RS. Vingegaard has the aero Cervelo S5 and the lightweight Cervelo R5.

Despite many other teams also using a two-bike strategy, informed by the conventional wisdom that the aero bike is for flatter stages, and the climbing bike is essential when the parcours points skyward, the top two riders didn’t touch their climbing bike. For the entire event.

This must have been tough to watch for the brands involved. Both Cervelo and Colnago delivered significant updates to both platforms for this season, giving their respective teams access to heavily overhauled new, objectively better new climbing packages.

The V5RS we reviewed recently is one of the best road bikes of its type, and whilst the old R5 was getting a little bit long in the tooth, the new version saves even more weight, in what any casual observer would assume should have been the perfect weapon for Tour success in the mountains.

So why then did both the V5RS and R5 stay in the truck for the whole race, and critically, does this mean the climbing bike is dead?

The new Cervelo R5 claims to be right on or under the 6.8kg legal limit in every frame size, and the Colnago was designed to be lighter and more aero than the already svelte V4RS it replaced. So why, even on stages with over 4000m of elevation gain and HC summit finishes, did neither rider use these brand new lightweight options once?

To explore why, we need to turn to physics.

Lightweight bikes are founded on two solid scientific principles. The first equation we can turn to for an explanation is ‘P = m * g * v * sin(θ’). This is the principle that Power (P) required to climb is equal to total mass (m) times acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²), times velocity in m/s, times sin of the angle of the climb.

For those of you who need that in English, that means that a steeper gradient, or higher system weight, requires more power to move at a constant velocity or speed.

But that’s not the whole picture yet, so bear with me whilst we also turn to Newton’s Second Law of Acceleration. Here, ‘F = ma’. That means that when mass is increased (the bike or system weight gets heavier), then more force is required to match the same acceleration.

That’s still not the whole story. We need to take into account the gradient too. Working against your progress as you push the pedals and lift your bike, you’re also subject to the forces of gravity. We can add that in, of course, and it looks like this: ‘F gravity = m * g * sin(θ)’, where g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²), and θ is the incline angle.

In simple terms, this calculation shows that the steeper the angle, the greater the impact.

What none of these formulas, elegant though they are, take into account is air resistance. Air resistance is one of the most significant forces that cyclists have to overcome when cycling.

In the Tour de France, where the average race speed this year was a reported 42.85kph, that means aero is all very important indeed. But surely, for us mere mortals, who can only dream of those speeds most of the time, that’s completely irrelevant?

Wrong, sadly. Even at 25kph, using a 75kg system weight, gradient of 7%, typical rolling resistance (Crr) of 0.004, a coefficient of drag of 0.32m², at sea level air density, the percentage of force that goes to overcoming aerodynamic drag is still significant, at around 14.8%.

What if we go faster? And ride at speeds of 30kph. Remember, 30kph is the speed at which grand tour cyclists will race uphill at, but the percentage of force that goes into overcoming aerodynamic drag at that speed now jumps up to 20%. Accelerations themselves result in ever greater air resistance, all of which has to be overcome.

In straightforward terms, at 30kph, the rider in this case is using a whopping fifth of their effort just to push through the air, regardless of incline.

There is then another factor. What goes up must come down. For every mountain that needs to be ridden up, save for summit finishes, there is a descent. The Mont Ventoux stage also had around 130km of flat roads. In that case, despite the gargantuan climb, at the average race speed of 42.85kph, air resistance for that stage becomes 90.4% of the total forces that a rider needs to overcome. Read that again. 90.4% of the total effort invested by the rider is spent on pushing through the air.

At 70kph downhill, where gravity comes to assist, not hinder, drag accounts for even more at 96.2%. As we’ve learned, this is because the drag force increases at the square of the velocity, whilst power to overcome this drag increases at a cubic rate relative to velocity. As speed increases, air resistance increases massively. The faster you go, the harder it is to push through the air.
That means, when you break it down into what is the fastest solution, even on the hilliest of stages, an aero road bike is still faster than a lightweight climbing bike.

There are a few caveats to this, though. Firstly, the UCI weight limit of 6.8kg is at play in the WorldTour. Many aero bikes can now be built down to 6.8-7.2kg in the frame sizes that GC riders use. It’s that increasingly narrow difference that’s rendering many climbing bikes obsolete.

It used to be the case that aero bikes were significantly heavier, or suffered from poor ride quality, such was the amount of material needed to make them slippery. But, Pogačar’s paint-stripped Y1RS was just a slip heavier than his V5RS, and extremely close to the UCI weight limit. Meanwhile, a lightweight climbing bike that could in theory, be built down to something flyweight like 5.8kg just isn’t possible, as weight has to be added to meet the UCI’s weight limit.

You and I aren’t constrained by the UCI of course. So your lightweight bike must be faster than the heavier aero equivalent? Not so. Whilst you can ride around on a 5.9kg bike these days, without even going full weight-weenie thanks to modern frame design, it’s not the panacea you might have assumed it is.

Of course, lightweight is associated with a certain perception of speed. Lightweight ‘feels’ faster when changing pace up a climb. But the harsh reality is that aero is still actually quicker, and perceptions are just that. We can’t neglect the placebo effect, but that’s often all it is.

Should we stop buying climbing bikes?

So does this mean the climbing bike is actually dead, regardless of if you’re in the WorldTour or not? The truth is, if anyone reasonably handy on a bike wants to increase the speed of their cycling, even if they live in a hilly area, then an aero frame will be the faster option, even if it’s heavier. Even if you want to go up climbs as fast as possible, aero will, in most scenarios, be faster.

And here’s the kicker. There is a trade-off point where reducing weight can make a bike faster than an aero frame, provided the drag (CdA) doesn’t increase beyond where the weight saving is more beneficial. However, this varies based on gradient and speed. A 9kg aero bike might not be best suited for something like the Maratona Dolomites compared to a 6kg climbing machine.

There is also that element that a lightweight bike can feel more fun, which is undoubtedly my perception when riding. The most fun bike I own to ride has 40cm bars, exposed cables, and Dura Ace mechanical, and I love it. The fastest bike I have to ride has 32cm bars and aero bits and pieces, but it does not feel as nimble to ride. It is, however, categorically faster.

Even for those riding at slower speeds and not constrained by the UCI weight limit, a good level aero bike that is within 1kg of the lightweight alternative is likely to be the faster option throughout a longer, even hillier route. For those racing, aerodynamics wins out every time.

But for those who just want to ride their bikes and feel sensations of speed and brisk accelerations, a lightweight bike may be the more fun option. If you want to go faster, consider a bike that allows you to optimise your riding position for better aero, as the body makes up around 80% of the total drag in the system, and the bike is just a small part of that anyway.

Aero bikes are also often more uncomfortable than their more traditional looking lightweight cousins. Comfort isn't often discussed as a performance parameter sadly, but if you want to go a long way, fast, some comfort makes a lot of sense.

As aerodynamicists, there are ways we know we can make our climbing bikes faster. For example, a deeper front wheel will be worth more aero savings for the same weight than a deeper rear wheel. The new Specialized Roval Sprint wheels are certainly on to something there. Additionally, for minimal resistance and weight saving, a skinsuit will often be lighter than a shorts and jersey combo, while also being more aerodynamic.

When it comes to bikes however, if fit and geometry are the same, aero will be faster almost everywhere and in nearly every scenario.

Anyone even casually glancing at the MyWhoosh Big Ride Challenge Facebook page will have seen posts showing an array of amazing looking cakes. And anyone looking closely might have noticed just how many of them are posted by just one member.

Living in the South-West of England, Graham Nix has been riding for more than 25 years and wherever he goes has a nose for a great café. And it’s not coffee that makes Graham’s perfect mid-ride stop.

“It’ll always be the cake, friends of mine tell me that I’ve got an absolutely wonderful sniffer, I can find them anywhere,” he tells us, a smile obvious even on the phone. “If there’s a café then I’ll try it and I’ve found some stunning ones over the years. I’ve been doing it since early 2000 and I know which ones crop up, but I seem to be able to find them when I’m in France and all the different places.”

It’s certainly no exaggeration to say that Graham is a regular cyclist, but for him it’s not about training, but more about using the bike at every opportunity, whether that be trips to the shops or holidays, and any kind of ride in between. When we spoke, Graham had just collected the family dog from the groomers, towing him there in a trailer behind one of his collection of bikes, stopping at the supermarket, then collecting him for the journey home.

Not a member of a cycling club, Graham rides with friends, alone, but most often with his wife, Joy. Indeed their cycling lives began together when they bought a tandem, way back in 2000.

“We never dreamt what we would end up doing, it was just for poking around here really.” Soon they were spreading their wings, taking the tandem, or single bikes, on holidays all over the UK and Europe.

“We've done some really strong stuff. We've been out to Italy cycling at the Belvedere Bike Hotel. We've been through Lake Garda, we love cycling in France. We've done quite a few tours with people called Green Jersey Cycle Tours, we've done World War One, World War Two, Normandy, Brittany, Loire, and we’re booked to go to Provence next September.”

And when they left the bikes behind to holiday on a cruise, Graham could be found in the ship’s gym, staring at the horizon while riding a static bike!

“Joy would say that I'm obsessed, and I can't have a conversation about anything without having a bike orientated element to it. I ride nearly every day, and apparently I can be grumpy if I haven't been out, because I just want to go out for a ride, and it doesn't matter how far.

“I think one change more recently is that we're not doing big distances, but I try to do at least one 100 kilometre ride a month. I did that for 50 months, and this winter I did it all outside,” Graham says, adding that in previous years some of those rides had been done indoors, a feat in itself.

As for the Big Ride Challenge, Graham has been with us from the start, hitting the target in the second year of the CW5000, the precursor to the MyWhoosh Big Ride Challenge .

“I think I did something like 4,500 the first time. Previous to it I'd never done 5,000, so it was a bit of a push and it was only just, I think it was 5,032 or something, but I was determined to get there because I was so close. But I suppose I'm in the 3,500 to 4,500 mile category, because I won't do anything ultra long. So it did actually push me to get to 5000 because I was determined to get there.”

When it comes to marginal gains, aero-tech remains a key battleground at the World Tour level. Rapid prototyping and improved access to simulations and testing technology are driving incremental advances that make professional cycling almost as difficult to keep up with as Formula 1 in terms of aerodynamic developments. It hasn’t yet matured to the extent that wings have developed winglets — perhaps thankfully — but races, and in-particular time trials, can be won or lost in the wind tunnel, and the new equipment that delivers these ever faster times is pushing cycling’s well-established aesthetic proclivities to their limits.

The reality is that whilst the shapes created are often challenging to look at, they work. The advantages can now even be tailored to not just the discipline (as we see in TT frames) but also to the specific needs and shapes of an individual. The Specialized TT5 helmet was primarily designed for Remco Evenepoel on the Soudal Quickstep team, for example.

Helmet development is in the spotlight here for its obvious impact on aesthetics but it forms a massive part of the aero-equation and I suspect will remain critically important in time trialling, thanks to the relative stability of the rider's head in this discipline.

Unlike some of the other developments over the years, such as fairings for our rear mechs which make little to no real-world difference, the gains here can be really meaningful, as the head makes up a large proportion of the all-important frontal area - responsible for so much of the drag that slows us down. Much more in the case of the rider’s head, for example, than say the frame or wheels.

Last year, Visma-Lease a Bike turned out with a helmet design only a mother could love, in the Giro Aerohead 2.0. It looks challenging, to say the least. It should really have been identified with a suitably disparaging name like the ‘Speed Sniffer’ SL8 concept which landed with an audible gasp when Specialized’s update to the SL7 broke cover. The ‘Aerohead’ features a massively elongated front, and flared rear of the helmet, which means it wouldn’t look out of place on the Death Star.

Aero isn’t new of course, but neither are the inter-galactic looks. The tech has just got a lot more advanced. The speed benefits have been clear since Greg LeMond won the 1989 Tour De France. Who can also forget Armstrong and Ulrich’s long-tailed helmets in the early 2000s?

A big difference now is that more sport cyclists understand the benefits of aero-tweaks. It also seems that pro-tour technology has a now routine habit of finding its way into our shopping baskets and onto our own bikes much more quickly than it may have done in the past. Sometimes, regardless of the cost-benefit analysis. The worry is here that we’re all going to be riding around in fancy dress.

I can understand that concern. My own work optimising athletes positions in the wind tunnel used to be delivered for brands and pro teams almost exclusively, but amateur riders are increasingly interested in their own aero performance to aid their racing or experience, and investing heavily in their hobby.

As a result, most of us now understand the benefits of bringing one's shoulders in, or dropping one’s head. And at any amateur TT, or triathlon these days, you can see people adapting positions to bring their heads closer to their hands or closing the gap between them.

What about road racing?

But will more focus on aero performance mean these crazy-looking helmets break out of the TT scene and catch-on in road racing too?

Well, the idea behind them is sound. They are extremely effective at smoothing the transition of airflow all the way from the hands, over the head and shoulders and out over the back. This reduces turbulence and friction drag. The likes of Rudy, Giro, and many other helmet manufacturers will now sell you an incredibly effective aero helmet. Still, it’s hard to imagine them being a very high-volume play for those brands, given the niche nature of time trialling and more importantly, just how out of place off the bike or outside of a time trial they would instantly seem.

Visma-Lease a Bike bike is convinced the looks are worth it. They are already using the Giro Aerohead time trial helmet in road races, such as the Tour of Oman earlier this year. It is not the very latest and most extreme space-helmet effort from the brand, instead they are using the older, first generation Aerohead helmet, as used in 2015 to win the opening prologue in that year’s Tour de France. It was a smaller, profiled, smooth helmet designed to have a small frontal area. It turns out it is a very quick design for road racing due to its capacity to work in the context, and not impact aerodynamic drag negatively when moving the head around.

Many do not work so well in so many conditions though. And, practically all ultra-slippery helmets forgo quite a lot of ventilation in favour of maximal aerodynamic performance. This is one of the reasons why in triathlon, and especially long course or Ironman competitions, athletes will often opt for an aero road race helmet, rather than a specialist time trial set-up due to the comfort and practical advantages. There is also a lot more positional movement on the road. It’s just the nature of the road race. You move your head around more to climb, sprint or to simply be aware of your surroundings, so a helmet that’s ultra-sensitive to position just doesn’t make as much sense.

To counter that slightly, my time in the wind tunnel has shown me that helmets like the POC Tempor can be incredibly fast on certain riders. However, when moving the head upward slightly, it can then become one of the slowest options. That particular POC lid was launched way back in 2012 but only received more widespread use much more recently when the HUUB Wattbike team started using it.

Even then, these helmets are quite rider-dependent. A good example is the British Cycling pursuit team, who often wear different helmets to each other with the sponsor's logos removed, as do Lidl Trek in time trials. This is because for each individual rider, a specific and individual helmet is generally the fastest in their own most efficient position. It’s another reason why these latest time trial helmets vary so much and so often in their designs.

What’s right for you?

If you do want to go down the aero helmet route, or just want to optimise with one of the less challenging-looking road-style helmets, you can read reviews of the best helmets and make decent gains via a lid with fewer vents, or go the whole hog to find out which one works best for you and your position in the tunnel, and you may well find bigger gains.

You don’t need a tunnel however, and there is now some good tech which will allow you to do it yourself; if you can control and account for conditions as best you can, you can get by with some software and some consistency.

Non-cyclists might assert that we already wear some pretty outlandish gear, but do these new ultra-aero designs benefit real riders out on the road, and are we ready to start stepping out in them? I don’t think so.

And, if they cross the rubicon into fancy dress (as most, if not all, of them now do), I just don’t think the time is coming where many of us are going to tolerate them on the Sunday run too.

The Giant Group — the parent company of Giant, Liv, Momentum and Cadex— is ushering in a new era as its trailblazing Chairperson, Bonnie Tu, has stepped down from her post after more than 30 transformative years in the cycling industry.

Giant Group is the world's largest bicycle manufacturer, producing not only the products of its own brands but also those of numerous other well-known bike brands in the market.

Tu, being at the helm of Giant Group, was often hailed as the most powerful woman in bicycling. Now in her seventies, she leaves behind a legacy of innovation and empowerment, but she'll continue to lend her expertise as a board member.

As of January 1, 2025, CEO Young Liu has taken over as Chairman, and Chief Branding Officer Phoebe Liu has stepped into the role of CEO.

A Liv-ing Legacy

Bonnie Tu has made a lasting impact at Giant Group, with her tenure lauded as having been ‘pivotal’ in the company’s operational development and financial strategy.

As Chief Financial Officer, Tu successfully led Giant's IPO (Initial Public Offering) in 1994, which provided the funds and stability necessary for the group's growth.

In her role as Chairperson since 2017, Tu is credited for driving Giant Group’s digital transformation and strategically expanding its manufacturing footprint outside of Taiwan. By establishing facilities in Hungary and Vietnam, she’s mitigated trade barrier risks and reinforced the company’s supply chain resilience.

Under her leadership, Giant Group has seen significant growth, with revenues reaching a record high of NT$92 billion (USD $2.8 billion) in 2022.

But Tu’s perhaps most profound, and certainly personal, achievement came in 2008 when she founded Liv, the world’s only truly women’s specific cycling brand.

Born from her own frustration of being unable to find cycling gear that fit her while training for the 2007 Tour of Taiwan, Liv was Tu’s solution to changing not only products but the entire narrative for women in cycling.

Liv doesn’t just design bikes, gear and apparel for female riders; it’s known for its commitment to involving female professionals at every stage of the design and engineering process.

Over the years, Liv’s impact has extended far beyond its products. The brand has built vibrant communities of women riders worldwide, championed greater female participation across all levels of cycling, and supported athletes and events on the global stage. Liv’s bikes have carried some of the sport’s greatest female cyclists—like Marianne Vos, Pauline Ferrand-Prévot, and Anna van der Breggen—to international victories; it also sponsors the women’s WorldTour team Liv AlUla Jayco and Liv has been a proud partner of the Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift since its inception, sponsoring the Best Young Rider classification.

“Her unwavering passion transformed the cycling industry and empowered countless women to chase their dream,” Liv said in a Bonnie Tu appreciation post on social media. “Bonnie didn’t just lead a company –she inspired a global movement.”

The new leadership

Incoming Chairman Young Liu has been with Giant Group since 1990. He’s credited for establishing Giant as the leading bicycle brand in China, and ’fundamentally transforming China's cycling culture,’ according to the brand.

Since becoming CEO in 2017, Liu has driven global sales and advanced sustainability efforts through initiatives like the Bicycling Alliance for Sustainability (BAS).

Newly appointed CEO Phoebe Liu has 20 years of experience within Giant Group, serving in various senior roles. Her expertise spans global operations and branding, with a track record of fostering collaboration and innovation.

“It is my sincere hope that the new management team will bring fresh perspectives and renewed energy to the company. I have complete confidence in the newly appointed leadership team to steer Giant Group towards a prosperous future," commented Tu.

On the first day of each month we set our MyWhoosh Big Ride Challenge riders two extra challenges to take on. These vary every month, depending on the seasons and where a typical riders's fitness is at that time of year.

They're easy to complete if you ride regularly, and most of them can be done on indoor trainers as well as out on the road. Some challenges will focus on distance, or altitude gained, others on searching out new places to ride. They're designed to be a bit of fun, and keep everyone motivated through the year, no matter what annual total they're aiming for.

>>Sign up to the MyWhoosh Big Ride Challenge and choose one of the four distances

All previous monthly challenges will be listed at the bottom of this page.

MAY CHALLENGES

CW Mini
1. Ride Bingo Spring! Find 5 things from the list below
2. Ride for three hours in one week

CW Midi
1. Ride Bingo Spring! Find 6 things from the list below
2. Ride for five hours in one week

CW Maxi
1. Ride Bingo Spring! Find 7 things from the list below
2. Ride for seven hours in one week

CW5000
1. Ride Bingo Spring! Find 8 things from the list below
2. Ride for 10 hours in one week

Ride bingo list of things to find: Hospital, runway, bad cycling infrastructure, boat moorings, bike shop, milestone, library, POI or tourist attraction

Previous months challenges

The Mini
April
1. Find a spring scene and take a photo
2. Complete a 20 mile ride
March
1. Complete a one hour ride
2. Find and ride a new hill
February
1. Be active for five consecutive days
2. Complete a 10 mile ride
January
1. Join a group ride
2. Exercise ten times this month

The Midi
April
1. Find a spring scene and take a photo
2. Complete a 30 mile ride
March
1. Ride four days in one week
2. Do a sunrise or sunset ride
February
1. Log a 40 mile week
2. Find and ride a new road
January 1. Join a group ride
2. Ride three times in one week

The Maxi
April
1. Find a spring scene and take a photo
2. Complete a 50 mile ride
March
1. Gain 15k vertical feet in the month
2. Do a sunrise or sunset ride
February
1. Complete 750 minutes of riding
2. Find and ride a new road
January 1. Join a group ride
2. Complete a 30 mile ride

CW5000
April
1. Find a spring scene and take a photo
2. Complete an 80 mile ride
March
1. Gain 20k vertical feet in the month
2. Do a sunrise or sunset ride
February
1. Complete 1,000 minutes of riding
2. Find and ride a new road
January 1. Join a group ride
2. Complete a 50 mile ride

This page will be updated on the first of each month with a new set of challenges for all our riders. You can also be notified of the monthly challenges via the Big Ride Challenge WhatsApp group

There's absolutely no doubt that the Van Rysel RCR Pro has been the most clicked on bike of the year at Cycling Weekly.

The chassis ridden by the pros of UCI World Tour team Decathlon AG2R La Mondiale has managed to undercut competitors on the market to the tune of a couple of grand. And, the more affordably specced Shimano Ultegra Di2 version is now down by a further £1,000(.01) in Decathlon's Black Friday sale.

Cycling Weekly tech writer, and former full-time rider, Joe Baker put this build through its paces as part of our Bike of the Year megatest.

Joe did point out that, wearing the Ultegra spec (as opposed to the top of the range Dura-Ace), this isn't quite such a phenomenal deal at RRP vs competition, with notoriously good value direct-only brand Canyon able to hold its own. However, he did score the bike very well for its low weight (7.28kg) and strikingly good looks.

The RCR Pro was designed in-house by Decathlon engineers, with the frame subject to computational fluid dynamics testing ahead of multiple iterations being run through the wind tunnel. This is, first and foremost, a performance orientated bike, designed to win races - and it's done a good job of that this season, with the squad clocking up 30 victories.

As you'd expect, the geometry is aggressive, with a stack-to-reach ratio of 1.40, putting the rider into a low, aerodynamic position; however, a longer wheelbase made for stable handling on test.

Considering its racing pedigree, Joe found the RCR Pro to be a "very comfortable bike, doing a great job of evening out the plentiful bumps on my local Oxfordshire roads", whilst he flagged a lack of responsiveness compared to others in the same category, this did play out in greater stability.

This article is part of a series called ‘A love letter to…’, where Cycling Weekly writers pour praise on their favourite aspects of cycling and share the personal connection they have with them. In this case, it is a break-up letter, addressed to poor train infrastructure for those travelling with bicycles.

The train from Bristol to London is a busy route; it has room for about 600 seats, along with plenty more standing room, which is regularly needed at peak times. It's a journey I take often, not always all the way to the capital, but for getting about places. Despite that reasonably big capacity, it often has room for about six bikes, if that.

You should make a reservation, you're told, and so you do, adding an extra hurdle to your journey. If you've passed that step, however, it doesn't necessarily end there. Who knows how many other people will turn up to the train you've booked on with their bikes, or how many bikes are already on the train. "There's no space," they'll tell you. "But I've reserved a space," you plead. No luck. You're basically operating on goodwill to get onto the train in the first place. There's more.

Space on the Intercity trains is, let's say, minimised as much as possible for bikes. There's no carriage or any room at all really, just space for two bikes to be hung up by their wheels in a cupboard, although this doesn't take into account big tyres, deep section rims, panniers, or any kind of bike which is non-standard. It's clear that bicycles are far from the priority. I regularly have to go through the ignominy of scraping my carbon rims onto the hooks, which is a struggle in itself, and it's hard before the chaos of a second bike appearing, or a third.

You are then forced to look after your bike yourself, controlling the space, working out the nightmare jenga, and asking people where they're getting off repeatedly, like you're an overly officious conductor. And remember, this is all if you make it on the train in the first place. The experience, from start to finish, is often arduous and anxiety-inducing.

This is just one train operator, and one of their trains, but it doesn't get much better across Britain. There are a few that are better, and have some dedicated space, but it's a lottery based on where you're going and who you're buying your ticket from. There is rarely anything easy about it.

The UK struggles to be a cycling nation, and never is that more clear than when you have to interact with different parts of infrastructure. Cycling on the roads is just about ok, if you can dodge the cars, but if you want to take your bike somewhere else, well then, that's when the trouble begins.

This is never more glaringly obvious than when you visit the continent and you're greeted with railway infrastructure which takes everyone's journeys into account holistically, not just trying to get as many paying customers on board as possible. In Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and France, it is almost like you're in a different world as a cyclist trying to catch a train. You might have to buy another ticket, but then you can just waltz on. Nothing of the levels of bureaucracy and awkwardness that comes with attempting to climb aboard a train with your bike in the UK.

The dream scenario, at the moment, when I catch the London train, is that there are no other bikes on board, and that I can spend my time faffing with the hook to hang my bike off. This feels like a shame, given I want as many people cycling as possible, but that's just how bad it is at the moment. Just a little bit of extra room would make the world of difference, but it seems that cyclists are an afterthought.

The first winner of the Tour de France Féminin, Marianne Martin, suffered a collapsed lung, concussion, fractured clavicle and collarbone, and 12 broken ribs in a serious crash earlier this month.

The 66-year-old crashed as she descended Sunshine Canyon, just outside of Boulder, Colorado, in the US on 6 October, and was in Boulder Community Hospital for over a week after that, including several days in the intensive care unit.

She is now seeking to raise $20,000 via GoFundMe to cover expenses and living costs while she recovers from the serious accident.

Martin won the Tour de France Féminin, a forerunner to the Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift, in 1984, the first edition of the event, and was the only American to do so for the 10 years it existed.

Asked in 2023 what she missed most about her cycling career, she said: "I do love adrenaline. I'm a complete adrenaline junkie and I'm a real fitness junkie, too. At that time in my life, I got my fix of adrenaline every week and I traveled with the best people, the best friends, all around the country for the U.S. circuit. I loved my life. It was very exciting and very emotional. There were definite ups and downs, but it was intense. I love intensity. It was everything I could ask for," she said.

"It was hard to transition away from it, but now cycling to me is a social way of fitness."

Her friend, Lindasue Smollen, is organising the fundraiser.

"If you know Marianne (and you do), you know she prides herself on her resourcefulness and independence," she wrote on GoFundMe. "She has been reluctant to accept support (other than kind words and visits) from her friends, but has come to the realization that it could be quite a while before she can return to working or deal with life’s many obligations.

"This is a chance for 'many hands making light work' to relieve the stress the her recovery downtime puts on her. She has received a tremendous amount of moral support from the cycling community, and it means a lot to her. Marianne wanted to make clear that she has Medicare and most her hospital bills will be covered though there will plenty out of pocket expenses as well. This fund is to support her ongoing living costs while her income is cut off and let her focus on healing.

"The long road to full recovery has just started for her, with your contribution[s] she’ll have an easier time dealing with the many issues she faces," Smollen wrote. "And I’m sure we’re all looking forward to Marianne being back on the bike and kicking ass!"

In an update last weekend Smollen wrote: "She is in a fair amount of pain and grimaces at almost the slightest move. The road rash on her face is healing quite well. She's very very tired, but that's to be expected. Overall, after a week, I think she's doing great. She does love hearing from everyone, even if she can't always respond in the expression of love from the GoFundMe is not lost on her so thank you everyone."

You can donate via gofundme.com.

The 2024 Life Time Grand Prix came to an exhilarating conclusion this past weekend at the Big Sugar gravel race in Bentonville, Arkansas. The series, known for its gruelling gravel and mountain bike events, saw Sofía Gómez Villafañe (Specialized Off-road) and Keegan Swenson (Santa Cruz-SRAM) crowned champions once again after seven months of intense competition.

Gómez Villafañe solidified her second consecutive Life Time Grand Prix title with a decisive win at Big Sugar Gravel, crossing the line 15 seconds ahead of her competitors. With three Life Time Grand Prix race victories under her belt this season, her dominant ride in Bentonville pushed her final points tally to 138, cementing her place at the top of the leaderboard.

On the men’s side, the pressure was off for Swenson, who had already secured his overall win before Big Sugar. Swenson dominated the series, with four individual race wins and a total of 140 points, making him unbeatable in the overall standings before the final race even began.

Introduced in 2022, the Life Time Grand Prix is a season-long race series in which a cast of handpicked competitors travel across the United States to contest the country's toughest gravel and mountain bike endurance events. The racer who stands atop the final series podium can call themselves the best-unpaved racer in the country.

"It was a great season, I can’t complain! Coming into this race without any pressure and having the win already secured was awesome. Third year in a row so I’m very happy, " Swenson commented. Clearly not tired of winning, he added that he's keen to go for a fourth title, stating: "I’ll fill out the application for next year too - I’m really looking forward to it."

Both riders walked away with a $30,000 prize purse, the top share of the $300,000 prize purse that was divided equally between the top 10 men and women competitors.

“I’m super excited to defend my title from last year. I crossed the line and won it but it was good to improve on my points. Three wins and two second places, this season I’ve just been really really consistent," said Gómez Villafañe.

"I came out of a bit of a lull in the summer feeling like maybe I wasn’t at my best in Leadville, but I’m starting to figure out this endurance stuff, and hopefully I’m back next year! Shout out to all the girls out there who are really stepping up the game, and I’m super proud to be out there with all the girls.”

Final Standings

Men's

1. Keegan Swenson - 140
2. Matthew Beers - 118
3. Payson McElveen - 118
4. Brendan Johnston - 110
5. Cole Paton - 103

Women's

1. Sofía Gómez Villafañe - 138
2. Melissa Rollins - 120
3. Paige Onweller - 119
4. Alexis Skarda - 112
5. Haley Smith - 103

Changes for 2025

Looking ahead, the 2025 season promises to shake things up a bit. As the series enters its fourth year, all riders must re-apply, and only 25 women and 25 men will be on the start line next year, down from 30 each year.

Of those 25 spots, three will be left for wildcard entries until after the opening two rounds. The top scorers in these, who have not already got a spot, will then get a second chance at entry to the rest of the series.

But while the field was cut yet again, the prize purse had grown. Organisers last week announced that the total prize purse will be $380,000, with $200,000 going toward series standings, and the remaining $180,000 will be distributed across the six standalone events, each with $30,000 in winnings. This means that for the first time ever, events like Unbound Gravel will have a prize purse.

"We couldn’t be happier with how 2024 turned out, but 2025 will elevate things even further," said Michelle Duffy Smith, Senior Marketing Director for Life Time.

"The bigger prize pool and changes in scoring will push racers harder and create more dynamic competition."

The series begins April 11 April at the Sea Otter Classic with a gravel race instead of the Fuego XL mountain bike race. This is followed by the 200-mile Unbound Gravel race on May 31; after this, the wildcard entries will be allowed into the series. The LEadville 100 will return in August as well as Chequamegon Mountain Bike Festival in September. The series will again culminate in October with both Bentonville's Little Sugar mountain bike race and Big Sugar Gravel.

I once bought a house from a man who made his living as an Elvis impersonator. This made sense, since he looked and sounded a lot like Elvis. As I was poking around in his kitchen he asked me what I did for a living. “I’m a professional cyclist,” I said.

“You must have a very low resting pulse,” he said.
“It’s about 42 beats per minute,” I said.
“That’s, ah, mighty impressive,” he said.

This was quite a result. It’s one of the sad things about cycling – no matter how much effort you put into it, no matter what skill, it’s hard to impress people. I don’t just mean non-cyclists, I mean anyone. For Elvis to concede that my resting pulse was “impressive” was as good as I think it’s ever got.

I appreciate that we shouldn’t be riding bikes to impress people, and I often feel it’s just as well. I’m a half-decent rider. I’ve won a few things, at a reasonable if not stellar level, in the admittedly narrow specialism of time trialling. All the same, I don’t think I’m Wout van Aert. And to prove no one else thinks I am either, here is a conversation with a reporter that I had immediately after finishing a Commonwealth Games event.

“You’re current National Champion, yes?”
“Yes.”
“Have you won anything else?”
“Well, I’ve won the nationals several times.”
“I meant proper races.”

In a similar vein, I was entertained when a friend told me about a fan he overheard talking to Geraint Thomas on a stand at a bike show:

“Hey, G, nice to meet you, I’m a big fan. I was cheering you on at the Tour in 2018 – boy did you get lucky there, but honestly it’s always nice to see one of the more average riders getting their day in the limelight.”

Thomas asked him if he did much riding himself. Apparently he’d done the Etape, and was very happy to talk about it.

My theory on this is simple – either someone is into cycling sufficiently to already know your palmares, in which case they’ll have recovered from any initial sense of awe and be much more interested in demonstrating their own insight. Or they don’t know much about cycling in the first place, and nothing short of winning the Tour de France five times is going to achieve much cut-through.

My experience is that people are more taken with anecdotal things. I’ve raced against Sir Bradley Wiggins several times. The head-to-head record is 19-1 (to Wiggins, lest you were wondering). If I focus on the odd “1”, people are quite taken with it. Even when I subsequently confess to the 19, they still see me in a glowing light, and often continue to do so when I mention his puncture and the fact it was a teeny-tiny criterium in Hillingdon.

The odder the better is usually the rule. My friend Bernard attracts more attention than anything I (or probably Geraint) have ever managed with his story of having warm urine squirted into his right ear out of a bidon by a drunk fan on Dutch Corner as he rode up Alpe d’Huez on the morning of a Tour stage.

“Wow,” they say. “And you kept going after that? Did you make it to the top? That’s amazing, you must be an extraordinarily determined personality.”

He doesn’t generally explain that he only continued to the top so he didn’t have to ride back down past the squirty man. (No cyclist has ever asked why the fan did this to him in the first place. They all understand Dutch Corner.)

Of course, for the better-adjusted rider, impressing people is not the aim. Cycling is its own reward – you do it for the simple joy and companionship, not to attract admiration. Many of us find this modest attitude irritatingly impressive.

Keep up to date with the latest information from this website with our free RSS feeds. By subscribing to our feeds you can automatically get links to the latest articles as soon as they're posted. [What are RSS feeds?]

Feeds available from this website

Latest News

Blogs

Comment

Events

Welcome to RSSRSS lets you condense a mountain of information from different sources into more palatable bite-sized chunks. RSS feeds let you quickly and easily hone the information arriving on your desktop to reflect the topics you're really interested in.

But what actually is an RSS feed?

An RSS feed most commonly consists of a headline, link and a description delivered in an XML (Extensible Markup Language) file format, which actually looks a lot like a stripped-down web page document. Some also include pictures and related links.

How do I access an RSS feed?

There are three common ways to access RSS feeds:

-Use software such as NewsGator (PC) or NetNewsWire (Mac) (both from www.newsgator.com) or NewzCrawler (www.newzcrawler.com).

-Use websites such as Google Reader (www.google.com/reader) or Bloglines (www.bloglines.com).

-Use a customized homepage such as MyYahoo (http://my.yahoo.co.uk) or Google (www.google.com/ig).

-Use your web browser to handle RSS feeds directly - Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer 7 and Safari can all be used to access RSS feeds.

Where do I find RSS feeds?

Spotting RSS feeds is easy once you know what you're looking for. You'll generally see a small orange graphic (see below), sometimes with the letters RSS or XML on it. It may even just be a plain line of text or URL.

I've found an RSS feed, what next?

The latest web browsers will display a lit-up orange RSS logo - click this and follow the instructions. For software and web-based RSS feed readers, you may be able to search and find the RSS feed, otherwise you'll need to manually add the link to your reader.

This site offers simple buttons for the most common RSS feed readers, letting you sign-up in just a couple of clicks.

By using our RSS feeds you are deemed to have accepted our site terms and conditions.