Since its inception, cyclocross has been defined by the fact that, no matter how you look at it, a ‘cross bike is rarely the perfect option for whatever course a promoter has dreamt up. And part of that is the restriction on tyre width.

Since 2010, restrictions for cyclocross have capped tyres at 33mm wide, in part as a response to disc brake technology coming into the sport. Today, by gravel and even road standards, 33mm is laughably narrow, and that has arguably turned cyclocross from a ‘run what you brung’ participant sport into one that requires a much more specialised setup.

So, why is CX still limited to 33mm tyres? After all, disciplines such as gravel are pushing the tyre-width envelope to unprecedented standards. Tradition plays a part, but even a few millimeters could have major repercussions for the industry. We spoke to tyre makers, bike builders, promoters, and athletes, and looked at the current rules in place to figure out who would want the change, who wants to stick with the old standards, and, if you’re someone who wants to race, where you’re allowed to run wider tyres.

A brief history of the 33mm rule

“The initial tyre size rule started back in the nineties when top pros would show up to races with a ‘truckload’ of tubular wheels, with tyres ranging from 25mm to 34mm glued up and ready to race,” recalls framebuilder and former pro rider Chris McGovern. The UCI eventually limited the tyre width in order to make the sport more egalitarian – after all, this was a sport that began in the farmfields of Belgium as a fun off-season event, and there have been width rules ever since.

In 2010, when disc brakes were introduced to the sport, the UCI decided to cap tyre width at 33mm, down from 35mm, to reduce the amount of equipment that racers needed to own in order to be competitive – because disc brake bikes could allow for a huge range of tyre widths, going narrower allowed those who still wanted to race on cantilever brakes (those of us who said ‘disc brakes were just a passing fad’) to stay competitive.

The irony is that 16 years later, that rule designed to make the sport more accessible and inexpensive may be holding it hostage. The idea may have worked back in CX’s heyday when cantilever brakes were the norm and disc brakes were a rarity, but today, with almost every bike running a disc brake setup, a normal set of gravel wheels is too wide to accommodate the thinner tyre for cyclocross. So, is it time for the UCI to loosen the restrictions, or would that lead ‘cross down the slippery slope of turning into gravel or MTB racing and disappearing altogether?

It's worth noting that the restriction does not apply in all races; in the UK and US, the rules are often (but, not always) loosened for amateur fields. Some events will allow any bike – including mountain bikes – check with the organiser before you head to compete.

The case for tradition

The pro racers who’ve been in cyclocross for a long time are torn: “To be honest, I'm not 100 percent sure how I feel about it!” admits retired American racer Ellen Noble, who took silver in the U23 World Championships in 2017.

“I think my initial instinct is that cyclocross is, at its core, about riding the wrong tool for the job... If we start widening tyres, we may next discover that a little suspension in the front helps people go faster, and so on. Fortunately, there is so much pedaling in CX that I don't ever see us just riding straight-up mountain bikes, but I think the parameters are nice because they keep the sport relatively simple and true to its roots. Part of what makes CX, CX, is that you're rarely riding the ideal setup for any given section.”

In fact, hunting down the gear and the search for the perfect tyre tread in 33mm is arguably part of what cyclocross is all about: The sometimes excessive obsession with gear. (Just head to any start line and ask “what tyre pressure are you running?”)

“Having a max tyre size at 33mm is actually a defining part of the sport,” says McGovern. Getting that size tyre with whatever tread to do what you need it to do is a skill. A skill that is a big part of the sport's definition. Pro baseball players can’t use aluminum bats; that would change baseball.”

Longtime pro cyclocrosser/gravel/road racer Tobin Ortenblad was a top U23 cyclocross racer during CX’s American peak, and he still loves the sport. “It’s hard to beat a 33mm tubular on a good course,” he says. “I also think there is a bit of magic to riding 33s fast. They’re twitchy and quite sketchy, but that’s kind of the glory of cyclocross.”

Similarly, pro cyclocrosser and creator of CX Fever Maghalie Rochette loves cyclocross more than anything – and because of that, she’s a bit of a gear traditionalist. “I don't necessarily think that wider tyres would make our sport better,” she says. “Depending on the condition, you don't have more grip necessarily with a wider tyre. If your tyre is narrower, you cut through the mud better, and you have a better grip in that way. You can rip corners really fast on the grass. So I actually like the 33s.”

“I think that at the top end of the sport, the tyre size is one of those limiting factors that forces riders to go slower or to take turns differently,” says Connor Gregory, promoter for Christie Cross in Toronto. “Big tyres are a bit of a cheat code. You can buy speed in every other type of racing, whereas in cross, having that tyre limitation means that your 10-year-old cross bike is still quite relevant and still pretty much the same as the current technology.”

In that way, “Cyclocross has become kind of immune to the technology progression and the upgrade culture that cycling is so set on,” Gregory adds.

But is that a good thing?

The case for going wider

“I think we are more than due for an update to the tyre width regulations for UCI events,” says Bill Schieken, founder of CX Hairs and promoter for DCCX and Pan-American Cyclocross Championships. He sees the participant numbers drop hugely during the races that have the tyre width requirements, and believes that the rules are keeping the elite fields in particular smaller than they would be otherwise.

Despite loving the 33s personally, Ortenblad agrees. “I can’t say for sure if I think tyre width keeps people from racing CX, but I definitely think that a 33mm tyre feels a bit archaic seeing as I ride 32mm tyre on my road bike now,” he says. “I do constantly think a 35 or 38mm tyre option would be good for cross. I think bumping the max size number a bit would be good for the sport. Obviously, we don’t need people out there on massive gravel tyres, but I think the racing would be a bit faster and maybe more fun on a slightly bigger tyre.”

In North America in particular, cyclocross has long been a participant sport – and that’s why USA Cycling and various Canadian provincial governing bodies have loosened tyre-width rules for amateur categories to increase participation. If you currently own a gravel bike, you may be able to fit 33mm tyres on the wide rims that are standard with modern gravel bikes – but because tyre width is measured by how the tyre stretches onto the rim, not what’s written on the sidewall, these wheels still may not pass the UCI’s tyre width test. So, USA Cycling allows for up to 38mm tyres for most non-pro categories, and Ontario Cycling takes it a step further by allowing wider widths even in elite categories of the provincial race series, though for National Championships, they warn that tyres will be measured to the UCI standard.

In the UK, British Cycling applies the 33mm rule to Elite, Under 23 and Junior races at both the National Trophy and Championship level but, as in the US and Canada, some local leagues allow for the running of wider tyres – checking the rules before you head to a race remains prudent.

At the pro level, the 33mm width wasn’t a problem ten years ago. Today, it challenges the very racers the rule was meant to protect: privateers and elites on a tight budget. If an elite racer has a gravel bike, they still will likely need a new wheelset in order to race cyclocross, despite the bikes and tyres being nearly identical. Widen the tyre restrictions, and you potentially widen the pool of athletes showing up to races because gravel teams and gravel privateers could more easily hop into a nearby UCI race with the equipment they already own.

“Cyclocross is just waiting for everyone to realize that their gravel bike is capable of doing cyclocross,” says Gregory. But while the gravel bike may work well in a local race, the tyre is unlikely to conform to UCI standards. “We shouldn’t have a tyre width rule for amateur categories, and really, I don’t think the pros would go much wider anyway. I can’t imagine Mathieu van der Poel racing a 45mm tyre – maybe a 38mm though.”

Rochette agrees. “The way I see it is that everyone has a gravel bike now, and that means everyone can do a cyclocross race – if they’re allowed to. I would love to see people using their gravel bikes to do cyclocross, so at least amateurs should be able to use wider tyres. That way it breaks one barrier for people trying the sport.”

“I don’t see anything wrong with going as wide as 40mm or whatever that limit may be,” Schieken adds. “Is this any different than the UCI being so reluctant to allow disc brakes, an innovation that has done nothing but make racing more exciting at the top level? Bring in the wide tyre. The racers will quickly figure out if wider is better or where the sweet spot lies.”

Would a wider tyre change the sport?

In a word, maybe. But there’s a reason that top riders still sometimes opt for even narrower tyres, says Challenge Tires founder Alex Brauns. They may be less supple or grippy, but they’re faster. (Asked who would win: Van der Poel on a 33mm tyre versus Wout Van Aert on a 40mm tyre, Brauns says Van der Poel would annihilate Van Aert because the “40mm tyre would create too much drag and be slower.”)

There is an important tech distinction to make when it comes to understanding tyre width and tyre choice, and that’s the tubular versus tubeless or clincher difference. “Tubulars at 33mm are not affected by rim width, so volume remains consistent,” says Brauns. “Clinchers and tubeless tyres, however, are impacted: As rims get wider, tyre volume decreases, reducing traction and rolling efficiency – clear disadvantages in off-road riding. With rims now reaching 25mm internal width and beyond, the system is compromised.”

Because of this, Brauns says, tubular tyres are still the best bet for cyclocross riders at the higher levels of competition. He says that as far as rules and regulations go, disqualifications at the start line have occurred due to a clincher tyre measuring too wide because of the rim, and he’d like to see clarifications to the current rules, given the rising popularity of tubeless-ready tyres. No one wants racers who’ve paid and registered to race to be turned away at the start line because of an avoidable measurement error.

McGovern believes wider width allowance would be the death knell for tubular tyres as we know them. “Even now, tubulars are almost dead and getting a low-pressure, low-volume tubeless tyre to work like a tubular is very difficult,” he says. “Increasing the max width would make it much easier to set up, I think. But that would change the essence of the sport. ‘Cross doesn't need to go gravel.”

While it may be a changeup for tyre manufacturers if the rules changed, it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, Schieken says. “Maybe it will make it more palatable for more tyremakers to offer a varied line of cyclocross treads again,” he says.

And Ortenblad makes the most valid point about industry standards: “It seems like gravel only took off because the industry wanted to sell something they didn’t already own… so maybe if we bump tyre sizes up, the tyre industry will at least make some profit on cross again as everyone buys new tyres.”

In recent years, professional race bike setup has shifted, especially in terms of geometry. Previously, saddles were slammed far back, and bars were relatively long and low. Nowadays, riders position their saddles further forward, over the bottom bracket, to open the hip angle for more power and a more aerodynamically efficient position, paired with a fairly long front end.

But as consumers and amateurs, should we emulate the positions professionals are adopting and, as a result, buy into the race machines they use? Or would we be better served by looking for a solution better suited to our needs and requirements?

The problem with copying the pros

A key difference between professional bike riders and us is how much time we can commit to training. Typically, we can't do as much mobility work as professional riders do to maintain those positions. In addition, many of us work behind desks or sit, which likely tightens posterior-chain muscles like the hamstrings. This in itself is a key limiting factor in being able to mirror the aggressive riding position of the pros.

The other consideration is that professionals adopt these positions largely to improve aerodynamics. Several stages of the men’s Tour de France this year exceeded an average speed of 45km/h, with stage 11 from Vinchy to Nevers the fastest in history, completed at an average speed of 50.91km/h. At that speed, about 80 to 90% of the forces the rider must overcome come from aerodynamic drag. This is why riders can adopt such an aggressive, aerodynamic position on the bike and, thanks to mobility and stretching work, do so without compromising their power.

Another byproduct of this position is that pressure concentrates in different areas. With the rider shifted forward from the bottom bracket and still with a generally long, low front end by most comparisons, this can put a lot of pressure on the wrists and forearms.

What should we do instead?

When choosing a bike position, we should base it on our individual physiology, biomechanics, and the type of events we are targeting. For example, my gravel bike setup has a significantly shorter, slightly higher stem, so I can sit more upright and feel less wrist pressure after hours on rough off-road surfaces. My road bike, however, has a saddle positioned far forward with both a long stem and long reach bars. My longest rides on it are about 2.5 hours at around 45km/h. However, since I went from racing at an elite, UCI level to working full-time, I need to do a lot of stretching and mobility work to maintain that position for longer. Which is exactly why I tend to ride the gravel bike for most of the year with road wheels and tyres fitted. It is a far more sustainable position for me.

This is why most consumers who ride for pleasure, do sportive events, or target rides between 25 and 35km/h should look at an endurance bike rather than a race bike. A good example is the Cannondale Synapse versus the SuperSix. The Synapse is very lightweight, has similar aero frame tube profiling to the SuperSix, but has a shorter reach and higher stack. This gives a slightly more upright position, which takes pressure off the wrists and neck. In terms of 'like for like' performance, there is very little difference between the bikes. The main difference is that one is raced on the WorldTour and the other is not.

The added comfort of the endurance bike will likely mean that, over longer rides and events, it will be the fastest setup because the rider experiences less fatigue. Interestingly, more professional riders are adopting higher stack heights with more spacers under their bars, evidence that comfort really is a performance gain.

My biggest recommendation, however, for anyone looking to increase their cycling performance or volume is to get a specific bike fit. There are a lot of options out there, but ideally you want a fitter who will do a full range-of-motion assessment and ask about your targets and goals.

If you are racing, they will likely set the bike up closer to the limits of what you can maintain flexibility-wise. If it is more endurance-focused, they will likely set you up in a position that allows sustained power output and comfort. In much the same way that we shouldn’t necessarily emulate the pros in how they train or fuel, when it comes to fit on the bike, we also need to individualise that to our specific needs and requirements.

A curious case for copying the pros

If you do higher-speed events, such as amateur road races that often exceed 40km/h or fast-paced group rides, aerodynamics still matters. That is why bikes like the Factor One aero bike perform so well at high speeds. The geometry supports high power output and a lower drag coefficient.

A saddle positioned further forward generally supports higher power output. Combined with shorter cranks, it opens the hip angle and generally lets riders produce more power; a saddle set far back can limit hip-angle openness and put undue pressure on the posterior chain. It is, of course, subjective, as with most bike fit and position-related things.

But for those looking to go fast and who might achieve similar speeds, emulating the pros isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, if you are serious about performance and comfort on the bike, the first thing you should do is get a bike fit.

TPU tubes have become ‘the’ go-to alternative to tubeless setups, offering a clean and faff-free installation, while still being lighter and more durable than traditional butyl rubber inner tubes.

However, in our testing of the best TPU inner tubes, expert Tyler Boucher cracked several valves when using too much force with a manual pump. This doesn’t seem to be the only issue; at Cycling Weekly, we’ve heard several reports of complete failures after ‘melting’ valve stems when using electric bike pumps.

I’m a strong advocate and user of both products – TPU tubes are an incredibly durable, lightweight emergency option for me, and electric pumps are just brilliant. My one tiny electric pump replaced my two mini pumps (one for road, one for MTB/Gravel), my airshot tubeless booster, and most of the heavy lifting done by the floor pump. So, I wanted to investigate what's going on.

To do so, I sat down with Christian Thill from German brand Aeron (part of the RTI group, owners of Ergon) and renowned tyre expert and Rene Herse owner Jan Heine to discuss the failures, how to prevent them, and what is next for TPU inner tubes.

The science behind the issue of ‘melting’

First, we need to understand why electric pumps generate so much heat. The issue stems from their high-RPM micro-compressors, which rapidly force air into a small space, creating friction from both air compression and the motor. Their tiny cases also mean they don’t have enough surface area to dissipate this heat. That's where thermodynamics takes over, and heat immediately takes the path of least resistance – down the valve stem.

According to Heine, this isn't about material properties in isolation; it's about how materials dissipate heat when combined. “The ‘T’ in TPU stands for ‘Thermal’. What many don’t understand is that butyl tubes are also thermally extruded, and they’ve proven themselves for decades without melting, despite their lower melting point”; a butyl tube’s melting point is around 150 degrees compared to TPU’s 180 degrees.

The difference with TPU tubes is the valve and its bond to the tube. ”Differential thermal expansion can cause the glue bond to break between the metal valve core and the TPU material. Obviously, heat from e-pumps makes this more likely,” he explained.

Thill agreed: “While this is the current accepted manufacturing method and TPU can withstand a reasonable amount of excess heat, this bond is a complicated manufacturing process and not foolproof”.

So, the TPU film isn't melting; it’s the tiny joint between plastic and metal that is deforming under thermal stress, something not found on butyl tubes, as rubber and metal are easily bonded through vulcanisation.

Is there a way to prevent damaging your TPU valve?

Several TPU manufacturers, including Aeron and Rene Herse, recommend using a flexible hose extender. Electric pumps usually ship with rubberised hoses that screw on and help dissipate heat; alternatively, you can use an old-school aluminium valve extender, which you might use with a deep-section rim.

If you don’t have an extender on hand, Heine suggested: “inflating in 20 psi bursts and then waiting a minute before continuing.”

What's stopping manufacturers from using metal valves?

Both Heine and Thill offered similar responses when asked why brands weren’t using metal valves.

“You can’t simply glue TPU to metal, so everybody needed to find a different solution”, said Heine, adding, “and plastic probably seemed like a more lightweight option”. Thill cited possible “cost-savings and ease of bonding TPU with TPU at the tube end of the valve stem” as reasons for choosing plastic over metal.

Given the original brief for TPU inner tubes was likely that they needed to be lighter than rubber, you can see how they reached these conclusions, especially if the manufacturing process didn’t support anything else.

“Product development for Aeron happens at our campus in Koblenz using an in-house test lab, while manufacturing takes place at a specialised TPU manufacturer in Austria,” explained Thill. While he couldn't share specifics, he said the factory's expertise lies in manufacturing TPU for phone speakers, meaning the brand has had to look far beyond the traditional bicycle supply chain.

Looking to the future - what's next for plastic inner tubes?

Rene Herse hasn’t offered a plastic option; instead, it became the first with a metal stem. “Basically, the TPU material is trapped between the valve and a ring. Our supplier patented the technology - we worked with them to perfect it,” said Heine.

Aeron has also moved toward wider adoption of metal valves, keeping plastic stems for its ‘ultra-light’ tubes and metal for everything else. Thill noted that “our factory had to open a number of new patents to make this connection between TPU and metal possible”.

While both brands have taken similar paths with what we will call ‘second generation’, they differ slightly on what's next. Heine believes much of what happens with TPU tubes hinges on tubeless development. “Maybe a new and better material will come along… or maybe tubeless will improve to the point where it will be universally adopted. From a technical standpoint, it’s hard for me to see how we can get there”.

Heine did mention that he could see advantages in wider gravel use, after his own testing, “the advantages of tubeless aren’t worth the hassle unless you’re a top-level gravel racer. Beyond that, I wonder when gravel racers will look to TPU for the (very real) speed benefits over tubeless.”

As for Aeron, Thill leans more toward material development and believes the next step could come from tyre manufacturers creating an ecosystem with TPU tubes, similar to tubeless setups. “Future developments could involve collaborations between tyre and inner tube brands to create optimised setups that rival tubeless performance”. This is similar to Rene Herse's Orando Grade 31mm TPU tube tyre and the recent launch of Continental tube-only Grand Prix tyres, both of which claimed to match the tubeless performance version.

The bottom line

While these first-generation TPU plastic valve stems can be damaged by use with an electric bike pump, there are some very easy workarounds when facing roadside stoppages – be that with a flexible extension hose or Heine’s gradual burst approach. However, as Jan Heine and Christian Thill highlighted, second-generation metal valves effectively eliminate the heat issue altogether, thanks to advances in manufacturing processes from both brands.

What was more compelling was our conversations about what could be on the horizon for TPU in the future – if tyre and tube ecosystems are improved, could these replace the faff of tubeless? Time will tell.

Due to the vagaries of the weather, the transitional autumn season can be a tricky one to get right when it comes to your kit selection. Temperatures can still feel somewhat summery, while humidity can also be a factor. However, rain is increasingly a threat, and some days it feels distinctly like winter.

So what sort of kit should we be looking to wear in these conditions? Are there items we should definitely include in our wardrobe? And are there some that may be superfluous for many but whose specialist nature makes them worthy of attention for some?

Having spent three years riding for a UCI team and seven as a BC Elite rider, I'm no stranger to putting the miles in when the weather isn't playing ball. Here's my advice for kitting yourself up to ensure you never miss a ride just because it looks grim outside...

The basics

The foundation of any cycling kit is a really great quality cycling jersey and a pair of the best bib shorts. This should cover you from around 16˚C / 60˚F and upwards.

As the weather drops below this, adding some lightweight essentials can help keep you warmer. Arm warmers and leg warmers are useful here, given they can be stripped off and shoved in a pocket if you start cool and the ride heats up. A mesh base layer can also help maintain temperature when it gets cooler, but also when it gets warmer.

Since autumn often brings rain, a packable waterproof jacket is a smart addition. We lose body heat via evaporation of water off the skin, usually as sweat, but in the rain this accelerates the process, especially when travelling at speed; when it rains, it drops the effective temperature.

A long-sleeve showerproof jacket can reduce this cooling, but breathability can be an issue. This is where one of the best cycling vests, or gilets, helps: they keep your core warm while allowing greater breathability.

Starting a ride in the rain

Some days, we walk out the door straight into the wet. The key is to create a barrier against the rain, and the easiest way to do that is with a hardshell waterproof jacket. A general rule of thumb for waterproofs is a water column rating of 10,000mm. Fit and stretch also impact actual waterproofing, and sometimes lower-rated jackets can be just as waterproof, if not more, than higher-rated ones.

You also want a jacket that has a degree of breathability. In the PFAS era of ShakeDry jackets, this was easier to find, but the ban on PFAS products has made it harder to find a jacket that effectively balances keeping you dry without creating that dreaded 'boil in the bag' effect.

Since waterproofing and breathability are harder to find together, look for other features. A two-way zip lets you unzip from the base of the jacket to improve breathability without sacrificing protection as much. You can also find jackets with breathable panels around the armpits or sides, where rain is less likely to hit.

In addition to the jacket, overshoes and gloves are key. Waterproof overshoes and gloves keep the two areas with a higher concentration of nerves as dry and warm as possible.

Temperatures dropping below 15˚C / 60˚F

When it dips below 15˚C / 60˚F, we're likely to switch from short to long. Lightweight, long-sleeve jerseys and tights become the norm, as do base layers. Again, mesh layers work well here because they trap a layer of air, which can both insulate and cool depending on external temperatures.

As we drop below 10˚C / 50˚F, a thicker base layer is often ideal and still lets you get away with lightweight long sleeves. However, lightweight long-sleeve jerseys don’t offer weatherproofing, so a durable water repellent (DWR) coating gives you more flexibility in how you use them.

A good balance is a long-sleeve jersey/jacket with DWR that also has some breathability at the back, where weather like rain has less impact, while still allowing better cooling. As mentioned, a two-way zip further improves the functional usable temperature.

Navigating wintery weather

As temperatures drop, insulation is key. Fleece internal linings help trap body heat and prevent cold outside air from penetrating. Typically, this is 'jacket weather', where windproof and weatherproof outerwear is essential.

Overshoes and gloves also become heavier-duty at this point; rather than just blocking wind, they need to trap heat as well. Fleece lining is sometimes used on these items, but make sure the fit isn’t too tight, especially when choosing the best winter gloves. If there is no space between your fingertips and the glove, it is easier for cold to transfer through the fabric and into your hands. Air is a great insulator, so a layer of that between your fingers and the fabric helps keep them warmer.

You will also likely look for a base layer with neck protection to help keep your neck and airways from getting cooler. This can also reduce your risk of picking up upper respiratory infections.

How to dress for the harshest of conditions

The harshest conditions - freezing temperatures with biting winds and some bouts of cold rain - are when the elements try to thwart you, but getting through them leads to some epic tales. High levels of insulation are required to keep your core temperature from dropping, so you'll likely need heavily fleeced, insulated jackets and heavier-duty winter bib tights as well. Forgoing some flexibility and freedom of movement is well worthwhile, even doubling up with leg warmers under tights in some cases.

You can also add a waterproof layer to keep the elements out and the heat in. Meanwhile, a balaclava or snood covering your nose and mouth can significantly take the chill out of the air, while gloves can become so heavy-duty that, in some cases, they are fully waterproof and offer less dexterity.

The key essentials to get you through the AW period

The list of kit items you need to cover all bases in different weather conditions could be, potentially, a long one indeed. However, you can cover most of these areas with smart layering and some crossover use of items.

For milder autumn weather, you can get away with shorts and a jersey, plus some arm and leg warmers, perhaps a sleeveless mesh base layer, and then a gilet for when the temps drop to the lower teens.

As it gets cooler, bib tights and a long-sleeve jersey/jacket that features a two-way zip, some weatherproofing up front, and more breathability at the rear will work from around 5-15˚C / 41- 59°F, depending on how you layer. A long-sleeve mesh layer and the aforementioned vest or gilet will cover you across a good range of conditions. Meanwhile, a waterproof layer ensures you're protected if the weather turns wet. Lightweight gloves work well too, and rainproofing features reduce wind chill factors considerably.

Even when riding in lower temperatures, I still find the same jersey and gilet, paired with a heavier-duty base layer and snood, is enough. The add-ons? Leg warmers under tights for extra protection, and rainproof overshoes under the tights to keep rain out. A waterproof can work well as an extra wind layer at this point, as long as you keep moving. Where I would invest, though, is gloves, as cold hands can make any ride fall into disarray. Fleece-lined and weatherproofed is ideal.

The one thing I wouldn’t bother with is thermal socks. They can change the fit of your shoes, and once they get wet, they can get cold; extra pressure between your foot and shoes can make this worse. You are far better off investing in rugged overshoes to keep water out, as this will keep your feet at a good temperature.

In recent years, shorter crank lengths have been in the spotlight. Back in 2024, Tadej Pogačar switched to 165mm cranks, a change that coincided with a run of victories that has yet to cease. Perhaps in response, Jonas Vingegaard was spotted using 150mm cranks at various races in 2025, although not at every event. Now 170mm, and shorter, are commonplace, if not quite the rule.

So, is shorter better?

Well, as with most factors relating to individuals, it really depends. There is no single correct crank length for every rider, and here I’m going to look into why that is. I'll also delve into the purported benefits and potential drawbacks. But first off, let’s get a bit of the background science out of the way.

Power (watts) is made up of two components. There's angular velocity, measured in cadence, and force, which is the torque we produce. An example equation would be 300W at 80RPM requires 35.81Nm of force (Power/Cadence) x 9.5492968).

But an interesting factor regarding crank length is that, although it doesn’t change the cadence at which you pedal, it does change the speed at which your legs move. This is due to the circumference of the pedal revolution changing as you alter crank length. Shorter cranks actually slow the foot, as it travels a shorter distance to complete each pedal revolution.

This has an interesting side effect: more pedal force is required with shorter cranks to achieve the same torque at the spindle, due to the reduced lever length. This has been suggested as a reason for higher self-selected cadences with shorter cranks, so as to reduce the pedal force required, increase the angular velocity of the foot, and still achieve the same power.

So why would a WorldTour rider use cranks that mean more force is required at the pedals? There are several reasons why, some of which we will discuss later. But first, smaller cranks change how the foot and leg move, which can affect efficiency and psychology. Since the foot is moving more slowly, there is an argument that higher cadences become more efficient because the legs do not need to move as fast or as much. This drop in angular velocities at the joints can help make repeated accelerations at higher cadences more sustainable, as at higher power outputs, higher cadences can also be more efficient.

Indeed, part of the supposed reason for Tadej Pogačar switching to shorter cranks has been to allow for the rapid accelerations he produces to effectively fly away from the bunch en route to one of his signature solo victories. It becomes somewhat easier to ‘spin up’ the gear with a shorter crank, even if torque can be reduced. It used to be assumed that longer cranks meant a longer lever, which resulted in more watts, but with higher cadence at higher power outputs being more efficient and excessive torque application being a limiting factor for fatigue accumulation, shorter cranks make sense for elite riders.

With bikes such as the Factor One and its innovative take on bike geometry, there has been a clear shift in the WorldTour toward riders being positioned further forward over the bottom bracket, akin to a time-trial ‘lite’ fit. Shorter cranks can assist here as the hip angle does not get as closed off at the top of the pedal stroke, and can make pedalling and power production more efficient. This, in turn, can allow for a lower front-end position without impeding the pedal stroke, possibly creating a more aerodynamic position. So far, it's looking like the benefits of shorter cranks are endless.

But they are not without their flaws.

Firstly, from a performance perspective, they do have some downsides. Shorter cranks mean your legs do not extend as much at the end of the pedal stroke if saddle height remains the same. To counter this, you need to raise your saddle or get a lower-stack-height cleat and shoe options, which is not cheap. This, in turn, results in a larger frontal area, and I’ve seen wind-tunnel testing showing that shorter cranks and adjusting your position to accommodate the change in fit often add a small amount to the coefficient of drag. Raising the saddle also has a small impact on the centre of mass, raising it, which can marginally reduce stability when cornering. Visma - Lease A Bike addresses this by using Nimbl Shoes with four-bolt cleat mounting for Speedplay pedals, which results in a stack height of about 8.5mm vs 14.6mm for Shimano Dura-Ace pedals.

Shortening the cranks also reduces the total torque production possible. It's not a problem for the most part, but for sprinters, it has been found that shorter cranks can reduce peak power production.

We also have to consider that the majority of us are not professional road riders, spinning up climbs at 90-100RPM at 400+ watts. In addition to that, what is going to be most efficient for one rider is not necessarily going to be the most efficient for every rider.

An expert's view on crankarm length

To get more insight into this, I spoke with Phil Burt, an expert bike fitter who has worked with Team Sky/Ineos and British Cycling over the years.

His view on shorter crank arms is that there is very little downside, as long as riders adjust their bike fit to account for the changes shorter cranks make to hip and knee angles, as well as saddle height and setback.

“People who bought 165mm crank arms are not taking advantage of that, likely keeping their saddle height the same level and therefore compromising position and power. The benefit of short cranks is moving up and forwards, getting over the BB more without compromising knee angle. It loosens up the psoas muscle, and you don’t really pull up on the pedal angle anyway, which is what this muscle can help with, but you can limit stiffness with a wider hip angle.

The problem with really small cranks, such as 150mm, is that the bike ends up in quite a high position. Potentially 25mm higher than what many bikes are designed around.”

This is a very interesting point, as frames are designed around certain crank ideals, so the BB drop is designed to accommodate crank lengths of 170-175mm. Short cranks and the higher saddle will impact the centre of mass and handling.

“The big benefit with these shorter cranks is more inclusivity for fit for women and shorter-stature people. They are also better for people with biomechanical issues or injuries; especially as you age, it is more important to optimise fit as the optimal fit window shifts and gets smaller. Short cranks reduce impact on the hip and knee joints which just makes sense as you get older. It also reduces asymmetry, as you don’t have the extreme angles where imbalances are more prevalent. A good crank length rule of thumb is that 5mm shorter opens up the hip angle by 2-3%.

Negatives? It’s trendy, but it’s only a problem if you don’t address the changes needed when you switch to shorter cranks. You also need to ensure it will fit within your optimal fit window. The only real performance downsides are at 0-30RPM, then short cranks are not as good, so team sprint off the line, maybe super steep MTB, but not much, if any, impact on road performance.”

As a fun analogy for how shorter cranks have had positive performance gains right away, Phil shared this story about Bradley Wiggins before his Hour Record attempt.

“Back in 2015, we were looking to optimise the team pursuit squad. They were low and super aero with their thighs in their chest. We dropped them down to 165mm cranks across the board for aero and power, and it helped instantly. Bradley Wiggins was training for his Hour Record attempt, three weeks out, and came to talk with us. He changed from 177.5m down to 170mm, and was able to get a 30mm drop in front height and over 3% drop in CdA. The rest is history.”

Beyond performance

As Phil mentioned, one very important aspect of shorter cranks being more readily available is greater fit accommodations for a wider range of people. Cycling has traditionally been very male-focused, with all bikes coming with 172.5 or 175mm cranks. Fine for the average global male height 171cm. But the average global female height is 160cm, and you wouldn’t set up a bike fit for a 171cm person the same as for a 160cm person.

With the release of cranksets down to 150mm, SRAM has taken a great step towards greater fit inclusivity, be that for female riders, younger riders, or riders with conditions such as dwarfism. It may be coming off the back of a 175cm rider dabbling in short cranks for professional bike racing, but the wider implications of this release are highly positive. Perhaps just don’t switch to 150mm cranks on a whim, hoping it will make you climb as fast as Jonas Vingegaard. Instead, get a bike fit and select the correct crank length for your individual biomechanics and specific cycling goals.

Visit any WorldTour race paddock, and you'll find it littered with radical-looking aero bikes. Tadej Pogačar (UAE Team Emirates XRG) has won prolifically using the Colnago Y1Rs, banishing the V5Rs lightweight bike to the team van. Perhaps most eye-catching is Factor's One bike, with its new take on geometry and wide forks that verged on UCI-illegal.

While many brands – Specialized with the Tarmac, Cannondale with the SuperSix Evo and Trek via the Madone – have dropped dedicated lightweight and aero models in favour of a 'one bike to rule them all' approach, elsewhere, it seems that aero bikes are here to stay. And they look weirder and more wonderful than ever.

Pogačar's dominance is such that he could probably ride pretty much any bike in the WorldTour and still win, while the Factor One has seldom been used by either the NSN Cycling team or Human Powered Health, with most riders instead opting for the Ostro VAM 2.

Are these latest aero bikes really offering the best solution for riders to be their fastest, or are they perhaps ‘not quite there yet’? If so, what refinements might come next?

Rider and bike, together as one

There is one annoying trend in the bike industry: vague, unclear testing or white papers. There are often quotes about the ‘watts saved’ versus another bike, be that a previous generation one from the brand or, quite commonly, ‘the leading competitor’.

Very often, details are limited: just the speed is given, maybe the yaw angle if we’re lucky. But it is often neglected which wheels were tested, tyres, handlebar width and geometry setup, or even if a rider was present on the frame for the test or not.

Our sister publication Cyclingnews has been testing bikes in the wind tunnel over the last few years. A common trend has been that, just because a bike alone shows itself to be fast, or even slow, with no rider present, it does not necessarily mean that it will maintain that relative position when a rider is added.

Some frames may perform badly without a rider, then be significantly faster with a rider present. Meanwhile, others test fast as a frame only, yet drop down the charts once a rider is onboard.

The reason for this is that a cyclist's legs are two large moving pistons that disrupt airflow and create more frontal area than the entire bike frame and wheels combined.

Add a great big torso on top of the bike, and total drag increases dramatically. This is why the performance differences between frames tend to get significantly closer with a rider present. Partly because the total drag percentage of the bike is so small when a rider is present, but also because some aerodynamic features of a bike can be rendered somewhat inept once you add legs on either side of it.

The industry has taken note of this, and some bikes are being designed and tested with a rider present. In developing the latest Specialized Tarmac SL9, for example, the engineers used a moving-legs mannequin as part of the design process.

We may be reaching a point where aerodynamic gains in bike design are slowing down – the low-hanging fruit has already been collected – but designing bike frames with riders in mind is where we will most likely see the next set of gains.

Shape shifting

There are a few other interesting design features that have become commonplace in cycling, which need to be considered when taking aerodynamics into account. First and foremost, the acceptance of wider tyres.

Previously, riders typically used 19-21mm tyres, whereas now 30mm tyres are commonplace, often measuring as wide as 32mm due to the wide rims they are fitted to. The wheel size, however, has remained consistent. These wide tyres marginally increase the height of the bike and the circumference of the wheel.

The introduction of shorter cranks has an impact, too. Short cranks, which open a rider's hip angle, require a higher saddle to achieve the same leg extension at the base of the pedal stroke. This again raises the COM and the frontal profile by a small amount and does increase drag.

Given that road frames have not changed significantly since tyres have gone from 19- to 32mm, and crank length from 175- to 165mm, there is clearly scope for aerodynamic frames to be designed with these factors in mind.

For example, a lower bottom bracket drop would account for shorter cranks, and I think it is likely a design path that frame manufacturers will pursue.

Track cycling leads the way

Track cycling leads the way in aerodynamic innovation, in part because, in individual efforts as well as small-team events like the Team Pursuit, aerodynamics accounts for most of the forces riders must overcome.

Factor, for example, takes several design cues from its track bike that won gold at Paris 2024 for Team Australia in the men’s team pursuit, and applies those to the Factor One.

The latest BMC time-trial bike, used by Stefan Küng and his Tudor Pro Cycling teammates and currently offered to the public in limited quantities, shares several design features with the Hope track bike used by Team GB.

This wide-fork, high-seatstay design is a perfect example of bikes being designed around riders. The new BMC Timemachine features high seatstays, directly contradicting the approach taken by most brands in their aero bikes. Seatstays dropped across the board when aero bikes first appeared on the scene; doing so reduces frontal area and frame-only drag. But when a rider is present, the difference is smaller.

This is where it gets interesting. BMC has not only raised the seatstays, but also deepened them and extended the aerofoil profile forwards. This, in theory, should result in a smoothing of the airflow off the back of the rider’s legs and decrease turbulent pressure drag behind.

We are also seeing more customized cockpits and handlebars solutions. This is not new in track or time trial events, but road setups are more tailored now. The latest Cervelo S5 uses a one-piece bar and stem, but what the pros are using features bespoke effective stem lengths, bar widths, and stem angles that are not readily available for the public to use, even if the overall design is the same.

Bikes designed for purpose

While track and time-trial bikes may influence road design, they're generally designed to travel at much higher, more consistent speeds. A design that is ‘fast’ at 60-70km/h (track speeds) might not be relatively as fast at 40-50km/h (road race speeds), let alone at WorldTour climbing speeds.

In the same way, riders use specific skinsuits for expected race-speed averages; frame designs suitable for track and time trial might not work as well for road racing, let alone for consumer frames.

How a bike actually rides also matters. Let’s take the radical Colnago Y1Rs and the more traditional Cervelo S5.

The Colnago is not quite as refined and direct in the front-end handling, while the rear compliance is not at the same level as the Cervelo S5. We’ve tested the S5, and it is genuinely a superbly balanced race bike, with stiffness and comfort where required. The design principles of the bike have remained similar in all its iterations going back over 10 years, but each model has been refined and optimised based on rider feedback.

Potentially, the reason the Factor One has not been used as much at the pro level is that, given its design choices, it lacks versatility.

Tech editor Aaron Borrill, who tested the Factor One, found it was an absolute rocket at higher speeds. But, several design elements and feedback I’ve heard suggest that it is not the most comfortable for long days in the saddle.

It’s also been suggested that it can be prone to variable wind directions experienced at lower speeds and when riding in a bunch. It’s a great piece of specialist design, and I applaud Factor for it. But being a revolutionary bike, it will likely need some refinements to find that balance between out-and-out aero and a bike that offers all-day compliance, comfort, and confidence.

The weight factor

Aero frame design can be held back by our obsessions around weight.

We’ve seen with the new Giant Propel, Merida Reacto, and Trek and Specialized converging on a do-it-all aero lightweight bike that some manufacturers are still chasing low weight over total aero efficiency. This does result in a somewhat compromised aero bike, but one that can hit the 6.8kg UCI weight limit, or even drop below it for consumers.

The aero bikes, even if heavier, are ‘faster’, with the caveat that speed remains consistent. Even over longer climbs with some accelerations, a 500g weight difference does not hinder the aero bike, especially at the WorldTour level. But there is a tangible difference between a bike that is 500g lighter vs a frame that is five watts less draggy. Psychologically, we can feel the weight difference, but not the watt difference.

Personally, I can also attest that a lightweight bike is more ‘fun’ to ride. It is lively, accelerates perceptively faster, and feels nimble and effortless.

I used to train on my TT bike and do 40km/h endurance rides, but it felt sluggish to accelerate, climb, and descend, even though it was undoubtedly faster. I can’t feel the difference between riding at 30- or 32km/h, but removing a bottle from my bike makes it ‘feel’ better to ride, which in my mind has a psychological impact.

The final word

Even though we are seeing some wild and wacky aero bike designs, in my opinion, they are not going far enough, given how technology and equipment choices have advanced.

We are starting to see more technology from track cycling make its way into bike design, as are rider- and frame-engineered solutions. But larger tyres and shorter cranks accommodating new frame designs might be the most interesting direction that frame design will likely travel.

Of course, this needs to be balanced with the other factors that contribute to a ‘good’ bike. There is a good chance that the next lot of revolutionary aero bikes will be refinements of what we are seeing now, with features that improve ride quality, not just wind-tunnel performance numbers.

But there will still be the ever-present limitation of weight, where riders are unwilling to sacrifice the tangible, perceptible difference of a lighter bike, versus the less perceptible to humans yet clearly genuine advantage of a less draggy bike.

Allow me to indulge in a parable, of sorts. Originally, the sun was our means of telling time, then, apparatuses using water and sand were devised for the same purpose. This progressed to spring-driven mechanical clocks, and from there, it was only a matter of time before these became small enough to be worn on our bodies. Early versions of mechanical watches can be traced back to the 16th century. This storied legacy was violently upended, however, by the rapid development of quartz watches in the 1970s.

Quartz watches, which use batteries, can be made cheaper, faster, and more accurately than their mechanical counterparts. Their widespread adoption almost completely wiped out mechanical watchmakers; within a decade, the tradition-steeped industry withered to almost nothing. Only through careful stewardship did mechanical watchmaking survive, and decades’ worth of knowledge was lost in the process.

Fifty years on, quartz and mechanical watches exist in harmony, though they are largely stratified into different markets. Quartz remains affordable and ubiquitous, while mechanical watches are more expensive and less common. Mechanical watchmaking is once again celebrated: unique specimens can command millions of dollars at auction.

Bicycles are not watches, but there are similarities. Both hold a technical allure and can be appreciated from perspectives of function and form. And while the situation isn’t precisely the same, the bicycle industry could perhaps learn a few lessons from the world of watches.

In cycling, electronic shifting has overwhelmingly become the default option, at least for racers and their ilk, and mechanical shifting has fallen out of favour. But are there long-term implications? This electronic takeover has coincided with the cost of bicycles reaching unprecedented heights, in part due to the price of button-controlled groupsets. Should a racing bicycle cost more than a motorcycle or a car? And are the benefits truly there, or are we in thrall to the delight of novelty?

Shimano’s first iteration of its electronic shifting, titled Di2, came out in 2009, heralding significant changes to how bikes are designed and built. The discourse at the time centred around updating software instead of upgrading parts and drivetrains that would perform without human inputs. These things didn’t come to pass, but the technology caught on with the launch of Shimano’s second generation of Di2, which was easier to use and more affordable. Since then, electronic shifting has proliferated, with SRAM leading the move to truly wireless shifting and innovating with varied 1X options, and even Campagnolo getting on board with batteries.

Today, electronic groupsets are on every professional road racer’s bicycle, and this has been the case for a decade. Electronic drivetrains have proven themselves robust and reliable, or at least as robust and reliable as anything else. The benefits are many: crisp shifting without deterioration, programmable shifting options, remote shifting possibilities, auto trim features, easier cable routing and installation, and more.

The question, then, is whether or not these things make a material difference to the average rider, or if the benefits are worth the steep price tag. Before high-end cable-actuated drivetrains were abandoned by major manufacturers (of the big three, only Campagnolo still offers premium mechanical groupsets), they were very impressive.

I would argue that most of these benefits are not necessary for the majority of riders. They largely fall into the “nice to have” category. For a casual rider getting on their bike once or twice a week in good weather, it might take years for shift quality to deteriorate due to cable wear. Does it really make sense to spend hundreds or thousands more to avoid this? The one scenario in which I think electronic shifting is clearly superior is for those with mobility limitations or arthritis. In this instance, the easier shift action of pressing a button is clearly worth the cost.

It is interesting to see how quickly groupsets have been split into separate tiers: generally speaking, electronic ones are geared toward the high end, and mechanical ones are entry-level. This isn’t absolute: Shimano has a relatively new 12-speed GRX mechanical option, Campagnolo has several very expensive mechanical offerings, and SRAM Apex AXS brings wireless to a more accessible price point.

Despite their relegation, mechanical groupsets have many worthwhile attributes. Without the need for electronics, they are cheaper to make, can be lighter, do not require charging, can be more easily field-repaired, and have significantly less expensive replacement parts. For the average rider, the simplicity of mechanical groupsets makes a lot of sense.

Broadly speaking, cycling is an inaccessible sport. The high cost of bicycles, accessories and races is preventing people from participating, and the cost of electronic groupsets has exacerbated this inaccessibility. This is detrimental to the sport.

I do not wish to denigrate electronic groupsets - I think they’re excellent and own multiple bikes with electronic shifting - but my fervent hope is that mechanical groupsets do not fall by the wayside. Part of the allure of a bicycle is its simplicity. It is an extraordinarily efficient machine. Modern bicycles are impressive, but increasingly they require specialized tools and esoteric knowledge that is beyond most people’s capabilities. I hope this doesn’t persist. Reasonable cost and user serviceability are two of the things that make bicycles so versatile and durable, but I am concerned by the direction the industry is moving towards proprietary parts and designs without backwards compatibility factored in. Longer term, will there be pushback to that trend, at least beyond the retrogrouch sector?

Jumping back to the analogy at the top: it is now clear that the mistake was in assuming that quartz watches would wholly replace mechanical ones, and history has demonstrated to us that this was not the case. I hope bike component manufacturers can avoid following a similar path.

We should absolutely keep pushing the limits of aerodynamics and faster, better drivetrains, but we should not forgo the elegance of simplicity.

As we all know, Q factor is the person who equips tuxedo-clad Special Agents with nifty double-0 gadgets as he chases after villains. Wait, no, that’s not right… In the world of cycling, the Q factor refers to the width of the crank arms. More specifically, the lateral distance between the outside of the crank arms at the point where the pedal spindles affix.

The name is actually derived from the word “Quack,” referencing the waddling gait of a duck. And no, I’m not joking this time. Cycling legend Grant Peterson coined the term during his time with Bridgestone Bicycles.

Q factor is part of the equation that dictates the width of one’s pedalling stance and can impact both pedalling mechanics and overall bike fit. But the Q factor is not the sole component of a rider’s stance: it is a starting point. Ultimately, the width of your feet is also affected by pedal type, spindle length, cleat position and shoe design.

Differing Dimensions

Before the advent of mountain and gravel bikes, Q factor was fairly consistent across cranksets from different manufacturers, typically between 145 and 150 mm on road bikes. Now, there are more variables. Gravel bike-specific components have slightly larger Q factors, often in the 150-155 mm range, and mountain bikes, which must accommodate significantly wider tyres, can have Q factors as wide as 170+ mm.

Larger Q factors have grown alongside the increased chainline measurements. Chainline is the distance from the chainring to the centerline of the bike frame and is critical to a drivetrain’s performance. The rise of 1x drivetrains and the ever-increasing arms race to add more gears has necessitated wider chain lines to work with wide-range cassettes.

How does this impact riding?

Most riders will be comfortable with some variability in Q factor dimensions without issue. A larger Q factor makes for a wider stance, which promotes stability while riding, but it also decreases cornering clearance and makes pedal strikes more likely when a bike is leaned over.

Aerodynamically speaking, narrower is usually faster. Thus, track bikes often have very narrow Q factors. Filippo Ganna’s Pinarello-built Hour-Record bike was designed around a super narrow 54mm bottom bracket and Q factor of just 134 mm.

Biomechanically speaking, whether or not the Q factor has an impact on pedalling depends on one’s physiology. For most riders, there’s a sweet spot within 5-10 mm where they are most comfortable and produce the most power. Going narrower might not be faster if it means a reduction in power output.

For larger riders, it may be more comfortable to have a slightly wider stance to match the width of your hips. There are no precise rules in play here regarding fit, rather it comes down to each individual rider’s perceived comfort and preference. For smaller riders, a larger Q factor may feel awkward and inefficient, and reducing your pedalling stance will help it to feel more natural.

While there are riders who are very attuned to these minute differences, we’re talking about very subtle changes, and a few millimetres narrower or wider is well within most people’s comfort range.

How do you measure Q factor?

Most component manufacturers will list Q factor as part of the specifications, but this information isn’t always easy to find. Fortunately, measuring it is straightforward enough. I recommend using a ruler, as it’s easier to be accurate with a rigid measuring device, but a tape will work in a pinch.

First, position the crank arms so that they are parallel with the seat tube and one of them is directly alongside it. Then, measure from the centre of the seat tube to the outside of the crank arm where the pedal threads in. On a modern road bike, this number will likely be around 70-73 mm. Doing the same on the other side (they should be symmetrical!) and adding them together will give you the total Q factor dimension.

If you own multiple bicycles, you may find it useful to measure Q factor across each of them to see if it differs. Component manufacturers are not consistent with this dimension across product lines and it is possible to have surprising amounts of variation between different component tiers even from the same company. Again, for most people this isn’t an issue, but if you find yourself not jiving with a particular bike for some reason, this could be the culprit.

What can you do to change it?

Fortunately Q factor is not the only piece of the puzzle when it comes to pedalling stance. If you wish to exactly replicate the fit of a specific bike, there are options when it comes to translating your pedalling stance.

For example, if you like the stance of your road bike (with a Q factor of say, 146 mm), and wish for your gravel-specific drivetrain-equipped gravel bike (Q factor 151 mm) to feel the same, then choosing pedals with a shorter axle (Shimano XTR pedals are available in a narrow version) will negate this difference. Or, if you wish to match the larger dimension, you could try longer pedal axles (Time makes road pedals in three axle lengths; Shimano has two SPD-SL options; Wahoo has four different lengths) to make up the difference.

Most cycling shoes also can accommodate some side to side adjustment for cleats. If you’re tinkering, this is a good place to start, as it doesn’t require purchasing any additional parts. Some shoes and cleat systems have more built-in adjustments than others. Experimenting with different shoes, cleats and pedals will help you to fine-tune your fit if you wish to do so.

Conclusion

To some, Q factor may seem like just another piece of esoteric cycling jargon, and, well, they’re not wrong. But it is a part of the overall picture of how we ride bicycles. The science behind Q factor has been studied some, however, more research needs to occur in order to grow the body of knowledge. For practical purposes, most riders will probably be well served by simply following the maxim: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Either that or, “Quack, quack.”

The diamond shape of a bicycle frame hasn’t changed much since it was first invented. Triangles are an enormously strong shape and can also be easily modified to accommodate riders of different statures. Each rider’s needs may vary, but the essence of the design need not change drastically.

A well-built bicycle transfers power efficiently through the drivetrain, steers predictably and is comfortable to ride for long periods of time. Overemphasizing stiffness creates a bike that turns every variation in the road surface into numbing vibrations while focusing too much on compliance makes a bike that handles unpredictably and loses energy through undue frame flex. It is in the harmonious middle ground between these two extremes that good bicycles exist.

Ride quality as a concept is highly subjective. Furthermore, the sensations you feel while riding a bike cannot be easily attributed to any one component or part. In sum, one might feel some combination of the following while riding: tyre casing, air pressure, spoke and rim interplay, frame design, seatpost flex, saddle padding and condition of chamois (or lack thereof). And that’s just the rear half of the bike.

There’s a reason why many bike reviews focus on objective characteristics, like weight, geometry and aerodynamic performance. Trying to isolate the performance of the frame from the entire system is somewhat akin to trying to discern an individual thread in a sock with the bottom of your foot. Still, we try our best.

Some thoughts on flex

We spoke with frame builder Corey Lowe of Eyewater Bicycles to learn more about frame composition. Lowe started in the bike industry with Parlee Cycles as an engineer and frame builder, then moved to Cannondale and Specialized as a design engineer with the high-performance road team. He has also done contract engineering work for places like Allied and Cervelo and currently builds custom carbon bicycles under the Eyewater name.

Lowe emphasized that the frame “must always [be considered] as a whole. There are times when isolating a component helps get a clear understanding of its impact, but the end result of how a frame rides is very much a game of the whole package.” As he says, “It is relatively easy to add stiffness while adding weight. The trick is to add stiffness without adding weight. The material properties of carbon can be adjusted with the layup schedule without necessarily adding weight.”

We also asked him about balancing stiffness and compliance: “Frames can be designed for both objectives, improving one or the other using layup modifications. I try to design frames to meet the performance goals set out and then work to optimize ride quality and compliance from that point. These two parameters are not always mutually exclusive, especially with working with carbon layup schedules and round tubing.”

Ultimately, Lowe says, “fit and geometry are the largest factors in rider comfort.”

Which tubes need to be flexible, and which need to be stiff?

Structurally, the highest concentration of stress on the frame occurs at the joints, especially the bottom bracket, with the middle of the tubes in between seeing the least amount of stress. The material used, its shape and its thickness all determine how it will react to strain and stresses.

If the goal of the design is to put the right amount of material in the right places, then this means using less material in the places where it will experience the least amount of stress.

With a conventional frame design, the downtube significantly affects the overall feel of the bicycle. It is the main structural element tying the bottom bracket to the head tube, so it is responsible for maintaining torsional stiffness and preventing too much lateral flex. If it’s too stiff, it won’t track the ground well, but if it’s too flexible, it will feel imprecise (i.e. scary) at high speeds or under heavy cornering loads.

The tricky thing to keep in mind is that the right stiffness for a rider is dependent on their size and weight. Chainstays need to be strong enough to hold the wheel in place while transferring the energy going through the drivetrain. The top half of the bicycle, particularly the top tube and seat stays, add to the strength of the whole by completing the triangles, but less rigid material here can help with finding the right balance of vertical flex.

The stiffness of the fork also significantly impacts comfort. Interestingly, the seat tube does very little to provide comfort or structure. Its primary purpose, outside of completing the triangles, is really just to place the saddle in the right position for the rider.

Methods

How does one change the stiffness of a tube? There are essentially three principles in play: material shape, thickness and diameter. Shaping is used both for aerodynamics and to encourage movement in specific directions and varying the thickness of the material at different points in each tube is used for weight savings and adjusting ride quality and rigidity. All else being equal, larger diameter tubes are stronger than smaller ones. By using thinner material with a larger diameter manufacturers can make bikes that are both light and strong.

There are also several other design elements to consider in addition to ride quality: aerodynamics, impact resistance, and weight all play a part, and depending on the application a designer may skew more toward the direction of one or more of these in order to meet specific aims.

Conclusion

Ride quality is an interesting topic of discussion in part because it is so subjective. What works for one rider may not work for another. Bicycles from large industry players are designed for those who fit within a certain range of constraints. Riders on either end of the height and/or weight bell curves will require adjustments to find a bike with their desired ride quality, and may need to seek alternatives to mass production offerings.

Ultimately, the biggest gains to be made when it comes to rider comfort are in the seatpost and tires. A seatpost designed to flex will remove much more road vibration than the frame, and ditto for tires: higher volume tires at lower pressures are key. When it comes to frame design, fit is the number one most critical element. A well designed-frame strikes a healthy balance between stiffness and compliance in order to fulfill its true purpose: making cyclists happy.

Bar width. Whether you're a die-hard road rider, or an avid gravel racer, it's a topic that is sure to start a conversation. 

On the road, we've seen a progression over the last few years towards ever narrower bars, whilst some World Tour riders have been seemingly shrinking their shoulders beyond what we thought was sensical just a decade ago.

But at the other end of the spectrum, we have the gravel trend of super-wide bars and flared drops, aiming to maximise both control and comfort. 

The truth is, most of us likely sit in between these camps - wanting a comfortable, controllable ride whilst not losing out on free speed. We spoke to a range of bike fit experts and cycling brands alike to try and establish how to determine the optimal bar width for the riding you do.

What are the symptoms of incorrect bar width?

Establishing whether your bars are the right width can be a little bit of a minefield. Bike fitting is inherently a particularly multifaceted equation, with small changes of just a few millimetres to saddle, crank length or stem length being enough to leave a bike feeling out of character.

To gain a better understanding of the implications that bar width has on overall bike fit, we spoke with Phil Burt, a UK-based renowned bike fitter who has three Olympics with Team GB to his name. 

"There is a misconception that handlebar width isn't important to overall fit" he described, "but bar width can make a big difference to your reach". This is because if your arms are extending directly outwards from your shoulders at 90 degrees, your reach will be longer than if you were to reaching further out to the sides, holding the hoods of a wider bar. 

The same is true if you're using a narrower bar which causes your arms to be slightly toed in - your reach will be less than if your arms were extending out straight.

But what problems can an incorrect bar width cause?

Phil Burt told us: "The most common symptom associated with bar width is wrist pain, or even numbness. If your handlebars are too wide, it can cause your wrists to become rotated outwards". 

As well as changing your reach, having your wrists rolled over leads to more vibrations going through the joint causing aches and pains. 

Burt continued: "Hoods are designed to be used inline with your wrist" and in order to achieve this, the handlebar width generally needs to be shoulder width, or even less to achieve a comfortable position.

Burt explained how he often advises customers to "set your bike up in front of a mirror" to best see how their wrists are lining up with your handlebars.

Tim Allen from Soigneur Bike Fitting also explained how: "the majority of people don't really consider bar width to be a problem. Lots of people can identify the symptoms but don't realize its bar width causing the problems"

The general consensus from both Tim Allen and Phil Burt however was that generally customers are riding handlebars that are too wide - there's much more scope for getting things wrong in that direction, whereas there's a harder limit on how narrow you can feasibly go.

In fact, when I asked Tim Allen whether there were any symptoms of bars being too narrow, he told me "The only symptoms of riding narrower bars is going faster". 

That said, he also said to note that those riding a more aggressive aerodynamic position may find a longer reach may be needed to maintain comfortable breathing.

We also spoke with Ben Robinson from Summertown Cycles in Oxford, who shared the view that very few people consider bar width to be an issue on road bikes.

"We very occasionally find customers who have had a bike fit prior to purchase who will ask for a narrower handlebar to be fitted. A bike fit prior to purchase, in our experience, does make a big difference to customer satisfaction."

What are the pros doing?

When it comes to the professional scene, it's still an overwhelmingly mixed bag. A few weeks ago at the Glasgow World Championships, I was lucky enough to snoop around a fair few of the pro's bikes, with very mixed findings in the bar department.

Simon Clarke, for example, rides a 42cm handlebar coupled with a whopping 150mm stem. This handlebar isn't for sale on the Black Inc website, which leads us to believe that it may have been custom made. 

This is particularly interesting, as although 42cm bars is quite a 'traditional' width, much of the pro peloton has moved towards much narrower bars for the gains in aerodynamics. So to not only opt for a wider bar, but to have one custom made, is really quite curious.

On the  complete opposite end of the spectrum, we have the current Australian national champion, Luke Plapp. Despite Pinarello's Most Talon handlebar is only being commercially available in a minimum width of 420mm - note: Pinarello measures edge-to-edge, so 420mm is closer to 390mm from other brands - Plapp has secured himself a much, much narrower setup. 

His handlebar/stem combo measures in at just 360mm wide with a 140mm stem - a bar which has been custom made for him by Pinarello. It is worth remembering though that Plapp's specialism is time trialling - which would explain his readiness to adopting a narrower position on the road.

What's interesting about this is that despite Pinarello having the carbon mould already in existance for these handlebars, the brand hasn't advertised the bars on its website - leading us to believe that Pinarello doesn't see there being a high enough demand to justify putting them on sale.

Are manufacturers behind the times?

While the vast majority of us aren't racing our bikes, the data from the bike fitters we have spoken to seems to suggest that perhaps bar widths are wider than they should be - at least on race bikes.

I was surprised when testing the Cannondale SuperSix Hi-Mod Ultegra Di2, to find a 420mm handlebar fitted to a top-level race bike, which I thought actually led the bike to handle almost too quickly.

British brand Ribble seems to think so. We spoke to Jamie Burrow, Head of Product and Ex-Pro Rider. having recently challenged the convention of regular handlebars with the Ribble's Ultra Aero handlebars.

"I think the industry just settled for years on the standard sizes of 40, 42 and 44 cm almost just because that's what's always been done. Also, until more recent times we have always used 3rd party suppliers for bars which put size choice to the mercy of them. Now, like us, most bike brands are producing their own bars, and where we have space and scope to move about more and create appropriately for the right cycling genre. 

"Although wider bars to an extent do offer a feeling of more security and control, especially for a novice, I'm of the opinion that road bars do not need to exceed 42cm anymore. It's just a case of getting used to change. I've moved from years on 42cm and now default at 38 and feel comfortable and in control."

Specialized, on the other hand, shared the view that this was only seen at the pointy end of racing. When we asked if they had witnessed an industry trend towards narrower bars, Specialized said: “We have seen a trend on the very pointy-end of the racing spear for riders to go after narrower bars. This trend has been mostly based on trying to gain a more aero benefit. 

"Just like our saddle widths, we used data and feedback from our Retul team to inform us on what size components we should be spec’ing on bikes. When we make spec decision we take a lot of factors into consideration: Comfort, Bike Handling/Control, and what works best for the majority of the riders.“

As such a large brand, Specialized has access to a wealth of bike fit data, but when we asked how often they saw bar widths being changed, they said: “We do have extensive data from Retul, from across the globe, and it seems that bar width is something that is not changed that often during a bike fit.”

“We are noticing narrower bars being prefer by some riders who are going after an aerodynamic gain, but again it’s mostly from of the tip-of-the spear race crowd. If we look at the road category as whole (including Roubaix, Allez, Aethos, and Tarmac riders) we don’t see a preference of going to a narrower bar as a big shift. 

"It seems to be a trend in pro-performance road only. In terms of the aero benefit, that is up to the rider and how they hold their shoulder and neck with each different bar width.”

We say...

There is a wide variety of opinions out there, each drawing on a specific and differing datasets. 

You might be fortunate enough that the stock setup on your bike does suit your position well. Bike brands do try and spec components which they believe will suit the greatest number of their customers - but that does invariably mean there will be some for whom the stock spec isn't right.

But, fundamentally, the best way to ensure that you're riding the right bar width for you it to visit an experienced bike fitter who will take into account your entire riding position and make a holistic change to your setup. 

Just why does the bottom bracket (BB) hold such a level of fascination within the cycling psyche? 

Perhaps it’s because that’s where a bike’s biggest bearings are to be found, and any sort of superlative holds a certain draw. Or perhaps it’s because of the cognitive challenge they pose - with so many styles and standards, they’re a veritable Everest to be surmounted, promising the warm glow of BB enlightenment once you know your square-taper from your cotter-pin…

Perhaps it’s their (admittedly, somewhat justified) reputation for creaks and clunks, making the bottom bracket into a lightning rod of blame whenever any mechanical mis-functions might arise. 

But whatever the reason for the outsized interest, we’re no more immune to the allure of the BB than anyone else. Today, we’ll be separating out the cases when Press-Fit outperforms threaded, and the situations where threads are still king. We’ll also be considering the point at which BB upgrades enter the realm of marginal gains, what difference axle diameter really makes and more besides.

On hand, we’ve got Dave Farmer of Surrey Hills Cycleworks, sharing his years of experience in dealing, upgrading and servicing the plethora of BB products and standards out there.

When are press-fit bottom brackets best?

In the cycling consciousness, the press-fit bottom bracket (and their accompanying ‘bogey-man’ connotations) is generally associated with the period of the 2010s - when there were particularly widespread issues with manufacturing tolerances, leading to a plague of problems with creaking.

The press-fit ‘standard’ for bottom brackets was actually developed by Cannondale in the year 2000, although at that point it was a proprietary system used only on their own bikes. Still, press-fit bearings are actually the norm in most areas of your bike, from your wheels to your pedals. Even ‘threaded’ BBs are technically press-fit - how do you think that the bearings ended up in those BB cups, after all?

But because of the fiasco of all those creaking framesets which were produced, many bike brands have stepped away from press-fit bottom brackets and have moved (back) over to using threaded bottom brackets - which is the ‘traditional’ way of fitting bottom bracket bearings to a bike. 

But whilst on metal frames these threads are cut directly into the metal, on carbon frames a metal insert has to be pressed into place and then the threads are cut into this insert - which brings its own downsides, as Dave Farmer explains:

“I really don’t see the point in [the] T47 [thread bottom bracket standard] on carbon frames, it’s just a massive fraud. It’s also really heavy. Think about it this way, if you take a BB30 frame, such as a Specialized S-works from five, six years ago, you’ve got two cartridge bearings, that’s it. 

“With a T47 system, you’ve got those two exact same cartridge bearings - 6806 bearings: they are the same bearing. You’ve then got an aluminium cup threaded into an aluminium thread inside your carbon frame. That’s a lot of extra metal that’s just not necessary.

“It’s still a bonded aluminium insert inside a carbon frame - there’s just as much potential for it to go wrong [if the tolerances are out] as a press fit bottom bracket. I’m very lucky with the brands that I deal with don’t have those problems anymore, they’re all made to a good standard. 

“Still, I think there’s going to be some cheaper frame brands out there that will struggle with quality control - but I don’t think that’s going to change whether it’s threaded or press fit in carbon frames.”

Essentially, with a carbon frameset, you are relying on the manufacturer’s quality control no matter whether the frame is designed for press-fit bottom brackets or threaded bottom brackets. The difference is essentially the total weight of the system and the tools you need to replace the bearings - which brings us neatly onto the next topic…

Is it worth investing in BB tools or is this something to just ask the bike shop?

In stark contrast to pedals - one of the few havens in bike tech where the standards are near universal - there is a truly massive variety of bottom bracket tools out there. Not only are there the fundamental differences between differing types of bottom bracket (press-fit vs threaded etc.), oftentimes brands will require a specific tool for their own BBs, further broadening the minefield.

“It’s challenging for the home mechanic,” Farmer agreed, “there’s an almost infinite number of tools you need for taking bottom brackets out. Every day we have: 'oh that’s a Rotor one, that’s a C-Bear one, which is different to Shimano, which is different to Praxis…’” But although there’s a lot of different tools for threaded BBs, at least they’re relatively cheap - a good bearing press for a press fit BB is easily into the triple figures.

“I’m always going to say come to a bike shop because I own a bike shop, at least then you know the job is done properly. But my Grandad said to me, you can’t put a price on tools because then you can do the job again - and that’s true.”

When it comes to threaded bottom brackets, an investment in the right tool will pay itself back pretty quickly - it could even be the cheaper option right from the off, and you can’t argue with the convenience.

When it comes to a bearing press for a press fit BB, these are much more expensive pieces of kit. There are cheaper options, but to emulate what would actually be done in a workshop, you’re looking at a triple figure price tag. If you have a few press-fit bikes, it wouldn’t take too long to recoup the investment of buying one.

If you have just the one press-fit bike, then the calculus is more balanced. It will end up paying off down the line, but it’ll take quite a while to get to that point. The most pertinent question is really what experience you’d prefer - do you want the job done by an expert or is it a skill you’d like to learn?

How much should you spend on a bottom bracket?

As mentioned, the biggest issue pertaining to bottom brackets today isn’t creaky press-fit shells any longer. In Dave Farmer’s experience, it’s low quality bearings which don’t go the distance. 

“If you’re looking at a SRAM BB that retails for about £50, there’s a retailer buying for that about £28, the importer’s probably buying it for about £16. It’s got a cardboard box, it’s got plastic cups, it’s got metal cups, it’s got two bearings, it’s got seals, it’s got instructions. The actual amount those bearings must cost is a very, very, very small amount.”

“So when we recommend to customers that we can replace like with like and it’ll cost £50 - or here’s an aftermarket one using really high grade bearings with really good quality grease, that’s costs £120, people tend to think ‘oh my God that’s really expensive.’ But that’s what a bottom bracket should cost.”

“We recommend them because they’ve usually got a stainless steel bearing and stainless races. They’ve got double-lip seals, which keeps the water out, and they don’t rust very quickly if the water does get in. 

It seems that you get what you pay for when it comes to bearings and especially bottom bracket bearings in particular. Perhaps it’s necessary to recalibrate what we’d expect a replacement BB to cost - at least if you’d rather be replacing them less often. But Dave Farmer does have one notable exception to this rule…

“The Shimano ones are pretty reliable, I think that’s mainly because they get their bearings custom made and control the whole process. The economy of scale works for them, given the sheer quantity they’re manufacturing.” So, that’s good news for Shimano users, the decision can be quite easy: you’ve got less chance of making an expensive mistake if you simply go with what they recommend.

Another part of the reasoning Shimano gives for the performance of its threaded bottom brackets in particular, is that, by using a 24mm diameter crank axle, there is more space in the BB shell, so larger ball bearings can be used. With a 30mm crank axle diameter, the ball bearings have to be made proportionally smaller because the BB shell remains the same size - and small bearings are typically less robust.

But that hasn’t fully born out in Dave Farmer’s experience: “True, it is the case that if you’re putting a 24 millimeter axle into a bearing which is in a cup that’s 45 millimeters in diameter, then you can have more space of seals and bearings - at least compared to a 30mm spindle. However, I’ve personally had 30mm axles through my bikes which I’ve done 10,000 miles on without a BB change. The quality of the bearings is what matters.”

When are threads still king?

We’ve covered the issues of press-fit (sloppy tolerances) and its rehabilitation as a technology (being a lighter solution than bonding metal inserts into carbon frames - each approach requires tight tolerances) - but does that mean it’s time to welcome the tech back with open arms?

Not necessarily. For instance, although the metal insert inside the frame and the metal cups of an external bottom bracket do add to the weight of a fully built bike, it’s not that much extra weight. 

For instance, the new Trek Madone aero bike has a threaded bottom bracket in a carbon frame, but even so, it’s still quite a bit lighter than the latest Cervelo S5, which uses a press fit bottom bracket. So even if weight is foremost in your considerations, it’s worth not overlooking bikes with threaded BBs. 

On the flipside, it would likely be true that if the Trek Madone had a press-fit bottom bracket rather than a T47, it would be lighter still. But that’s not the only consideration. As mentioned, bearing presses are much more expensive than the glorified wrenches (which are essentially what external BB tools amount to). So, for a home mechanic, a threaded BB in a carbon frame could still be preferable, even with the weight increase. Arguably, that’s not really relevant for a World Tour frameset, but that’s another story.

With all that aside, there are cases where threaded bottom brackets still unambiguously rule the roost - and that’s on metal frames. “Cutting thread into the frame after it’s been welded is the right way to prep the frame,” Dave Farmer attests, “if you have a press-fit in a titanium frame, once you’ve welded [the BB tube in place] it it kind of distorts the tube a bit, and it’s challenging to get it perfectly circular.”

For metal frames, then, it is very much still worth avoiding press-fit fabrications - although these are getting continually rarer, as the pendulum has very much swung against press-fit now. 

It might sound paradoxical - or you might have heard it so many times that it no longer registers - but the rule holds true nonetheless: the faster you can stop, the faster you can go.

Of course, unnecessary or ‘comfort’ braking will only slow you down. But being able to brake later into the corners because your stopping distance is both short and predictable will allow you to carry more momentum for longer - in turn, helping to increase your average speed.

But even if shaving seconds in the switchbacks isn’t something you particularly care about, the silence and satisfaction of a perfectly functioning bike is something to take pride in and a joy in itself. Plus if there’s any area to take special care in, then surely it’s your stoppers!

We spoke to Dave Farmer, bike mechanic and owner of the Surrey Hills Cycleworks bike shop for his tips and tricks for getting the best out of hydraulic disc brakes. Don’t worry, we’ll be following up with tips for mechanical and rim brake systems in time!

1. Contending with contamination

First off, if you’re feeling like you’re significantly down on power, chances are it’s not larger rotors or specialist pads you need - but simply a service of what you already have. “We don’t get many people saying they want to upgrade the power of their disc brakes,” Dave Farmer said, “people come in and say that their brakes aren’t working very well and usually the issue is contamination.”

Another key sign is that “horrible honking sound like a flock of geese flying after you,” Farmer continued, “sometimes that does happen in the wet, but it should go away after the wheels have come around two or three times. If it doesn’t go away then your brakes are contaminated.”

There are many different ways it’s possible to contaminate a set of disc brake rotors and pads, but all involve getting some sort of oil on the pads or rotors in some sort of way. That could be through touching the disc rotor with greasy fingers or a drip of mineral oil hydraulic fluid - or almost any number of reasons. But there are two which stand out in particular.

“This is happening quite a bit at the moment with the summer rain showers. There’s a lot of diesel on the roads and that is what we believe is the one of the major contaminants. People go through a 20 foot long puddle that’s got shimmering diesel over the top of it and really there’s no way back from that. You need to replace your brake pads and clean the discs with alcohol.”

In the winter, the even greater rainfall actually helps mitigate this issue. The oil and containment on the road are washed off much more regularly, meaning the spray is less likely to cause issues for your brakes. In the summer, though, with (hopefully!) prolonged drier spells between the rains, the amount of oil build up is proportionally greater before it’s finally washed off and into the usual puddles.

Farmer’s second piece of advice is to be “very, very aware of what you’re putting on your bike. Pay attention to the products you are using and use disc brake cleaner for your brakes and a dedicated bike cleaner for the frame.” Considering the price for a single pair of Shimano brake pads - such as the J04C model with cooling fins - can be as much as $36 / £35, the cost of getting the right products is significantly less than what could potentially go wrong.

2. Sticky pistons

Another issue which could leave you thinking that you’re in need of an upgrade is sticky pistons in the disc brake caliper. “It makes the brake less powerful. As a rider you don’t really notice it, as your brake degrades in performance over time you get used to it,” Farmer said.

“But certainly when you have a sticky piston on the brake and you lubricate the piston and then you rebleed the brake and change the fluid, it all just starts working better. Usually when we’re doing that for a customer in the workshop, we’re probably changing the pads at the same time and giving the discs a clean down and getting everything back to new again effectively.”

Checking to see if your pistons might be sticking is quite straightforward. It’s generally easiest if you take the wheel and brake pads out first, and then pull on the brake lever a couple of times while looking at the caliper. If both the pistons move inwards at the same time by about the same amount, then great - no problems there! If one caliper doesn’t move or only advances a bit, that’s when you have a problem. 

The solution then is to “use a bit of disc brake cleaner to clean up the caliper and piston. Then, depending on what brake you’ve got, lubricate the piston. For brakes that use DOT fluid (like SRAM) we use silicone oil - Hope sells a lovely little bottle. 

“For Shimano we don’t use anything, we just clean it really well. Shimano brakes are so susceptible to getting mineral oil on the pads anyway, we shy away from using that on the pistons and just clean them,” Farmer said.

A Q-tip or cotton bud is generally a good way of really getting in there and cleaning all the way round. Do bear in mind that if your brake pads are already quite worn and the pistons are quite far advanced, you’ll want to push them back into the caliper body before pulling any more on the brake lever - or you risk the pistons popping out and will have the fiddly task of getting them back in and rebleeding the system. Also, before you push the pistons back in, do give them a proper clean, otherwise you risk introducing dirt into the system which again will cause you more problems down the line.

If you’re mechanically minded and willing to give it a go, Farmer recommends learning how to do a full brake bleed by watching YouTube videos from the brake manufacturer, “not just some random bloke in his garage - something from an official YouTube channel or video sponsored by the manufacturer of the brakes. But ultimately, I would say if you’re not sure, pay a professional to do it properly, because it’s brakes and you don’t want to muck it up.”

“It’s not even [a new issue] with hydraulic disc brakes, we see so many bikes with rim brakes which come in and the levers pull straight to the bars. To some people, general maintenance is completely mystifying. If that’s you, just pay a professional to service your bike a couple of times a year and get it working absolutely spot on.”

3. Upgrades that matter

But although the first port of call if you’re frustrated at the stopping you’re experiencing on your bike should be a service and reflection on whether your current pads are actually just contaminated - once you are satisfied, there are upgrades which do make a difference.

“I can think back a few weeks ago to one of my customers,” said Farmer, “Joe had basic steel rotors on his gravel bike [the Tiagra equivalent of Shimano GRX] and we changed them to the Ice Tech rotors, 800 series ones, and put new pads on it. He came back and said wow the brakes are just so much more powerful now, thank you.”

“On one of my two bikes, I have SRAM Rival’s newest brake calipers and on my new Tarmac I’m just riding this week I’ve got the latest SRAM Red on it and there is a difference in braking power between those brakes. It’s the same pads in each caliper and the exact same rotors - actually the same wheels, I just swapped them out. The setup is identical other than the calipers and the levers.”

“It must be the caliper stiffness. Perhaps the quality of the polishing of the pistons, also the pivots of the lever blade. There’s a lot of unseen things in there that make a big difference.”

One upgrade where there are large differences which are clear to see is Shimano’s newest generation of disc brake calipers - first introduced with the launches of Ultegra and Dura-Ace R8100 and R9200, respectively.

“The biggest improvement is the ease with which you bleed them. The fluid flows through the caliper much easier. That doesn’t make much of a difference to the average Joe riding their bike around, but it is the biggest improvement,” Farmer said.

“In terms of the biggest real-world difference when you’re riding your bike, it’s that the pads retract further, giving more space to the rotors. That makes it easier to set your brakes up and means that they’re less likely to rub when you get out of the saddle.”

The good news is that the new calipers are backwards compatible with the older generation levers, so if you’re experiencing a lot of problems with the calipers you currently have after multiple seasons riding through all conditions, there is scope to upgrade this area without splashing out on a whole new groupset. As ever, if you’re wondering whether your own components are cross-compatible, Shimano’s compatibility charts are a really useful resource. 

Airless bike tires might just be the answer to the cycling commuter’s worst problem. If you’re going to use your bike to get to and from work, you want your journeys to be reliable, but the thing most likely to stop that is getting a puncture. They have a tendency to occur in clusters and usually when it’s most inconvenient, you’re in a hurry, it’s cold, dark or wet.

So a technology that avoids the risk of having to a fix a bike puncture is of even more benefit to the commuter cyclist than the leisure rider. Fortunately it exists: airless bike tires (which sounds better than calling them solid tires) are a real alternative on a commuter bike.

Modern airless bike tires are made of a micro closed cell polymer resin (MCP) manipulated to make a solid foam-like material. It’s much like the material that running shoe soles are made of. With careful processing MCP can create a durable tire with most of the performance benefits of a standard pneumatic tire plus the crucial advantage of never puncturing.

Fitting airless bike tires also means that you can cut down on the amount of kit you need to carry with you; no need for a pump, spare tubes, puncture repair kit, tire levers.

Why aren't we all using airless bike tires?

Thanks to brands such as Tannus tires from South Korea and the UK’s own Greentyre pushing the development of airless bike tire technology, airless bike tires could well be an option for your next commuter bike tire purchase.

Airless bike tires have a reputation for being slow, heavy, difficult to fit, uncomfortable and lacking in grip — all key factors in choosing bike tires, and for most riders these far outweigh having to deal with the occasional puncture. But for a commuter travelling shorter distances, that might swing the other way and airless bike tires could be a viable option to reduce maintenance and downtime.

Are airless bike tires easy to fit?

Tannus uses plastic pegs which pass through the bike tire and clip it into the beads on the wheel’s rim. Fitting the bike tires is slow but not particularly difficult. It’s a lot easier with two pairs of hands. Once on the rim, a special tool is used to clip the pegs into place in the bead. Getting the correct length peg is the key to setting up the bike tires properly.

Greentyre points out that an incorrect fit can cause additional rolling resistance and make an airless bike tire feel hard to ride and less responsive than a pneumatic. It says it’s important to know both the bike tire size and the width of the wheel rim in which its bike tire will be fitted.

Tannus tires are claimed to be lighter than most tire, tube and rim tape combinations and airless tire bands like Tannus have improved the grip offered by their tires to the point where they rival conventional tubed bike tires, so wet weather commuting isn’t an issue.

So airless bike tires are catching up, creating a viable alternative that can appeal to a wider spectrum of riders, but they are not looking to take over from pneumatic tires for the performance cyclist. They’re available for a wide range of wheel sizes including Bromptons and other commuter bikes.

This article forms part of a week of women's focused stories, in celebration of our Women's Special edition of Cycling Weekly Magazine, one sale from Thursday, March 10. See the full schedule of upcoming articles here.

The debate over women’s specific bikes has dragged on for well over a decade.

Women's specific geometry bike frames - typically with shorter top tubes and taller head tubes, designed to cater for claimed anatomical differences - have been around on the mass market since the early 2000s. 

These frames were said to better cater for women's reportedly lower center of gravity, and trend towards carrying a greater distribution of muscle mass in our lower body. 

Outside of the frame, women's bikes will have narrower handlebars and women's saddles - to meet the needs of women who have statistically narrower shoulders, and different saddle requirements.

The marketing argument

The creation of a women's specific bike also appeals to the shopping habits of the mass market. 

Elsewhere in our consumer lives, women are marketed to according to their gender: most will buy a Venus razor over a Mach3. This means that the 'women's bike' aisle may feel like a more natural home. The difference within cycling is that being a male-dominated pursuit, choice tends to be more limited. 

What do the big brands do?

It would be helpful if the bike manufacturers with the greatest access to data and research all took the same approach. However, if we look at Specialized, Trek, Liv and Canyon, what we’re left with is a raft of differing viewpoints. 

Specialized and Trek were the first brands to create 'women's specific geometry bikes', with models arriving in 2002 and 2003 respectively. But both returned to unisex frame design around 15 years later, initially with women's models that featured gender-specific touchpoints, before these were replaced with one model to meet all needs.

Trek's Domane, Madone and Emonda models now have a unisex geometry, replacing the likes of the women's Silque, and Specialized replaced its Amira women's road race bike with a unisex Tarmac years ago now. Initially, it maintained the Ruby women's endurance bike, stating that these customers wanted a different experience compared to the male Roubaix shoppers, but the Ruby was axed at a later model launch.

Specialized, which owns the Retül bike fitting system, reportedly bases its "beyond gender approach" on data from 8,000 bike fits, "we’ve learned that all riders are unique, and that the stereotypes of body shape are largely inaccurate," the brand said at the time. 

Meanwhile, Liv (the women's arm of Giant) is entirely dedicated to separate geometry for female riders. When I referred to 'unisex frames' at a recent bike launch, its founder Bonnie Tu looked told me: “those bikes are made for men, they’re not unisex.”

Liv says that its research papers show "significant anthropometrical differences that will determine the best bike fit", with its data placing women's legs as longer whilst our upper bodies and arms are shorter, proportionally vs men. It also says that "a woman’s percentage of lower body to upper body strength is greater than that of a man’s. We use this data on strength differences to tailor the stiffness and compliance of our frames to meet a woman’s power demands, without sacrificing the strength and durability of the frame."

Canyon takes a similar stance. The brand used 60,000+ data sets to determine its approach, concluding that women had a shorter wing span on average, so needed a shorter top tube to get the same ride quality.

“We position the women in the same way that we do men on a bike – taking into account the average differences between measurements," said women's brand manager, Katrin Neumann at the Canyon WMN road bike launch.

'No statistical difference'

The conflicting approaches above don't bring us closer to an answer. So what do custom bike fitters - who have no warehouses full of bikes to sell - feel the majority needs?

Bike fitting expert at VeloAtelier, Lee Prescott, tells me: “Based on the Dreyfuss Human Scale – the most comprehensive ergonomic data display there is – there’s no statistical difference between women and men’s limb lengths," not mincing his words, he reiterates: "There's no measurement which is different between men and women that affects bike fit.”

Numbers collected in the NASA anthropometric summary tell the same story, as do those produced by the USA Military database, based on 132 body measurements on around 4000 individuals.

It is worth bearing in mind that the anthropometric doesn't take into account flexibility, position on the bike, or the distribution of muscle mass. 

"Women are typically more flexible than men - so to ride in an ideal position many female riders might actually have a slightly longer top tube," Prescott says.

Former lead physiotherapist at British Cycling, Phil Burt agrees that there's no statistical difference in limbs that required a differently shaped bike.

The founder of bike fitting services at 'Phil Burt Innovation' believes women are massively under served by the market - in terms of kit, saddles and more. But he doesn't think they need women's bikes; "I don’t think they [women's bikes] exist. Does a woman pole vaulter use a women's pole?"

"The only women's specific parameter is stance width. All bikes come with the same stance width [Q-Factor], all pedals except Speedplay, come with the same 53mm axles - but women have wider hips. So your Q-Factor is greater – which is why some women have knee pain, because their knee goes inwards as they pedal."

Small bikes for smaller riders

Despite being against women's specific geometry, Prescott does believe that shorter people - and taller people, anyone outside of the statistical norm - in general are not well served by the current market.

This is a position shared by frame builder Adeline O'Moreau of Mercredi bikes: “My personal experience with the men and women I’ve built bikes for is that the differences in reach and saddle to bar drop have all been to do with general fitness, and how much they stretch - it has nothing to do with your gender.

"What you find when you look at anthropometric data sets is that men and women have similar proportions, it’s just that more women are slightly shorter. What we need is more bikes for smaller people, not more bikes for women."

Many brands currently produce fewer bikes in small sizes - and sometimes the smaller bikes share moulds with larger versions - resulting in dramatic jumps in seat and head angle, and discrepancies in handling.

"If you're not producing many small bikes, the space between the steerer and the saddle needs to be as small as possible, so you can increase it by putting a longer stem on, or more setback on the saddle" says O'Moreau, "so you make a really steep seat angle, and a really shallow head angle. That means those bikes don’t handle well, but it’s a problem that affects everyone who is smaller – not just women.

“Off-the-peg manufacturers could make more smaller off-the-peg bikes – so the changes in top tube, or seat angle, would be less dramatic."

Many women's specific models have been designed around a shorter average height - and for that reason their handling can be more consistent.

One such selection is Canyon's WMN range, which provides for smaller riders in a way no other mass produced off-the-peg brand does (if we exclude kids' bikes): with smaller wheels.

The women's models range from 3XS (suitable for a rider or 152cm ) to Medium (186cm rider height), and the 2XS and 3XS bikes use 650b wheels, designed to alleviate the compromises made when attempting to design a small bike around the 700c standard.

“When you get to small sizes, if you’re using 700c wheels,  you still need to maintain a certain distance between the two wheels, and between the crank and the front wheel to make it rideable. So you end up slackening the head angle, increasing the fork rake", says Canyon's Marketing Coordiantor Jack Noy.

"That pushes the front wheel back out again which solves the problem but affects the way the bike feels and affects the consistency of handling."

“By using a small wheel you gain the extra room, the size range increases and the consistency between the sizes stays the same,” he adds.

Prescott certainly supports this approach, “I would say smaller people are better served by 650b wheels. There is always going to be a rolling resistance penalty. But the smaller wheel allows them to get into a better position," he comments.

Also not covered by limb measurement stats is carbon layup.

Women's bike manufacturers often adjust the material to cater for a smaller individual producing less power and with a lower weight. This means lighter riders aren't forced to pay a penalty for stiffness they won't utilise, and it's something Canyon allowed for with its WMN range, creating the lightest bikes in its brand offering.

What should customers buy?

The debate continues to drag on. Whilst one set of brands tones down its approach to female specific geometry, a new host of 'women only' machines arrive from their competitors.

Statistical differences in limb length appear to be downplayed by independent experts. However, none of the data sets used consider flexibility, riding experience, fitness or personal preference.

Regardless of limb length, height, weight and experiential desires - when all is said and done, the only person who has to ride your bike is you.

So the bike fitters, brands and custom builders can have their own debates. As a buyer, your best bet is to find the bike that fits you and your individual needs: that means test riding as many bikes as you can.

This article forms part of a week of women's focused stories, in celebration of our Women's Special edition of Cycling Weekly Magazine, one sale from Thursday, March 10. See the full schedule of upcoming articles here.

Wearing earphones and listening to your own sounds, be it music or spoken word, while riding is one of those topics that divides the cycling community.

A survey by ESRA (E-Survey of Road Users' Attitudes) in 2018 carried out in 60 countries and covering 6 continents, concluded that 58% of participants across all regions supported a ban of the use of headphones while cycling. 

The USA laws on wearing headphones are decided state by state, with most amounting to it being illegal to ride with headphones covering/ in both ears, although in some states it's a strict ban when riding on the road all together.

In the UK it's not illegal to cycle with earphones in or covering ears. However as a road user, you can be prosecuted for not riding with due care and attention.

It's a large area of controversy, with the last large scale poll conducted on the subject (BBC 2014) resulted in almost nine out of 10 responders in favour of a blanket ban, with many citing a perception of cyclists being unaware and unresponsive to dangers, therefore more likely to be involved in incidents.

Is it safe to ride with headphones? 

Rider and road user safety seems to be the main reason behind any bans or restriction of headphones use, with 'inattentional blindness', the inability to notice the most conspicuous object because our attention is focused elsewhere, often thought of as the culprit.

However with some of the best headphones for cycling on the market today, you can choose to amplify ambient sound, or even opt for bone conducting headphones, which leave the ears open to external sound, which could mean that riding with earphones aren't now as isolating as once traditionally perceived.  

While it’s hardly unexpected for headphones users to come under fire, research has actually found that, contrary to popular opinion, listening to music while cycling might not be as detrimental to your health and safety as almost all groups would have us believe.

Cycling with headphones

A study on Cycling's sensory strategies: how cyclists mediate their exposure to the urban environment by Dr Katrina Jungnickel and Dr Rachel Aldred found the use of music and headphones actually helped create a ‘sensory strategy’ that enabled the cyclist to cope with riding in a dangerous environment by effectively calming the overload of sensory data.

The research above was conducted on urban cyclists and showed that they were just as aware of their surroundings, if not more so, than other transport users and engage in sensory strategies that manage their exposure to risk.

Just as drivers use the radio to create a safe, social and comfortable space on the road, it is possible to interpret cyclists’ sensory strategies as ways of negotiating and taming challenging environments.

The research above was conducted on urban cyclists and showed that they were just as aware of their surroundings, if not more so, than other transport users and engage in sensory strategies that manage their exposure to risk.

Just as drivers use the radio to create a safe, social and comfortable space on the road, it is possible to interpret cyclists’ sensory strategies as ways of negotiating and taming challenging environments. 

Outside of the chaotic urban environment, music may also play a major part in increasing your fitness when incorporated into training. It can boost your ability to ride harder, faster and with more enjoyment.

According to another study by Dr Costas Karageorghis of Brunel University, one of the world’s foremost experts in sport psychology, music is effectively a legal performance-enhancing drug.

This study was able to evidence that listening to your favourite artists can increase your endurance by up to 15 per cent while lowering your perception of effort.

It also demonstrated that music can also trick your mind into feeling less tired during a workout, and also help to encourage positive thoughts.

While listening to music will no doubt mask some outside noises, an informal but well researched and executed Australian study by RideOn, found that a cyclist wearing ear-bud style headphones and playing music at a reasonable volume hears much more outside noise than a car driver — even when that driver has no music playing.

That said, it also concluded that the type of earphones used make a big difference as to what and how loudly things were heard. 

Headphones for cycling 

Deciding if you should cycle with earphones is a very personal decision, and in some cases a legal one. 

In the UK a spokesperson from British Cycling shares the sentiment that “It’s best to use all your senses while riding a bike but your hearing is far less important than your sight". Before going on to say "People who are deaf can ride perfectly safely while on the road. In the end we should all be looking out for each other.”

Key safety points before cycling with headphones 

Headphone makers Shokz say that the best headphones for cycling are bone conducting ones as it believes that 'open ear headphones are the bet for situational music and also to hear the world around.' 

On test Shockz OpenRun bone conduction headphones allowed us to always hear approaching cars, giving them near full marks on test. 

Alternatively, if you are still unsure, select a pair of earphones for use when riding one of the best exercise bikes when dialled in to your favourite tunes, or get the full outside experience inside with one of the best indoor training apps. 

Expert views

Sam Williams, former pro rider

“I am a huge lover of listening to music while riding. For me, earphones are just as important as a pump and spare inner tube when I’m out on a ride.

"I listen to music even when I’m just out for an easy spin. It’s great for either chilling you out or getting you pumped up for when you have a harder training session.”

Edmund King AA president

“It helps if road users have their wits and senses about them whether as a driver, pedestrian, cyclist or motorcyclist.

"We wouldn’t advocate that drivers turn up their music so loud so as to drown out any outside noise and equally if those on two wheels choose to wear headphones or earphones the volume should not drown out external noise.”

Some of the quotes in this article were originally published in November 2016

Before the 1970s, the only choice for racing was a tubular rim, whereby a tubular tyre would be glued on. For all other types of cycling the only option was ‘wire-on’ tyres, which had a rigid wire bead and were heavy and slow.

The arrival of Mavic’s Module E rim in the mid 1970s changed all that. It incorporated a hook shape to capture a lighter, foldable bead and prevent it from blowing off under high pressure. And it’s taken from the 1970s until now for road cycling to get more or less in line with all the other modes of pneumatic tyred transport – including mountain bikes – and use hookless rims with tubeless tyres.

They’re hardly universal yet, but several brands responsible for producing some of the best road bike wheels,  including Roval, Enve, Zipp, Corima and and Giant/Cadex, are all getting behind the 'new' hookless tech. But are they really better than the traditional hooked type? More importantly - are they safe? And should you be riding them?

“There are a number of misconceptions about hookless rims,” says Bastien Donzé, Zipp wheel product manager. “First is that hooks on the rim are necessary to ensure safe retention of the tyre. Our testing shows that tyre burst pressure or tyre blow-off is very similar on hookless rims to hooked rims.”

Zipp recently launched a new 303 S and 303 Firecrest, both of which use hookless rims, but the maximum recommended pressure is just 72psi – and at the moment Zipp has a list of only five brands that have confirmed their tyres are compatible with Zipp’s hookless rim. “It's not because 72psi is the limit of the wheel but that's because that's what's imposed by regulations like ISO and ETRTO [European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation],” Donzé explains.

Moreover, with hookless rims designed for 28c tyres, a higher pressure is not only unnecessary but detrimental to the wheel’s performance: “Even on smooth asphalt roads you’re saving 3-5 watts on bigger tyres and lower pressure. On rougher surfaces, your savings are up to 40 watts.”

>>> Are wider tyres really better?

The key to the better performance is that the sidewalls are spaced further apart in a hookless rim and supported better since the bead is not pulled inwards by the hook. “A big tyre on a traditional rim will be like a lightbulb in profile. With hookless the tyre sidewalls are being supported a lot better. You get the full the benefits of a big tyre and low pressure without any of the squirm or the rolling resistance.”

Hookless also reportedly has an aerodynamic benefit, as Donzé explains: “Because the tyre is not pinched, you have a much cleaner transition between the rim and the tyre. Even though the rim is wider and increases frontal area, the system with the tyre is quite a bit faster.”

Hookless rims are made using a simpler but superior manufacturing process, says Donzé, which results in better compaction of the carbon, better resin distribution through the rim, tighter tolerances in the tyre bead seat, less waste and less scrap.

“For carbon rims with a hook you have to design a soft mandrel made of silicone that can squeeze into the hooks and mould the tyre bed cavity. Using a soft mandrel you're losing manufacturing accuracy and generally you end up putting in more material. When you go to hookless you can replace that silicone mandrel with a steel one that gives better accuracy [so a better interface with the tyre] thanks to better compaction of the resin that also results in more strength on the wings of the rim. The silicone mandrel is one time usage – it has to be thrown away after every use, so that’s a lot of waste. The steel one lasts thousands of cycles. There's a reduction of the costs, which equals a lower price for the end-user, as demonstrated by the new price of our 303 wheels."

And finally, thanks to the better resin distribution achieved by the hard steel tool, a hookless rim saves a considerable amount of weight over a traditional hooked rim with no strength penalty: “We were able to save 300g with the 303 Firecrest,” says Donzé, “and it’s just as strong in terms of impact.”

While Zipp is committed to educating the cycling community about the benefits of running bigger tyres at lower pressures, Giant has accepted that not every road rider is willing or able to run 28c tyres at 72psi. "The key thing for us is being able to run the regular pressure of the tyre, up to and including the maximum pressure that's printed on the sidewall, so that the rim is no longer a limiting factor," says David Ward, Giant product and training manager.

Ward also argues that not every road rider wants 28c tyres: "We’re making rims in 19 and 21mm widths and we’re making wheels and tyres so you can run hookless down to a 23c tyre and up to 125psi. Of course nobody should actually be running their tyres at 125psi but we need to build in that possibility of someone running it at maximum pressure, hitting a pothole, and having a dodgy gauge on a track pump. It’s a safety issue so we do have to take it very seriously."

Like Zipp, Giant has published a list of compatible tyres that are safe to inflate beyond the ETRTO maximum pressure of 72psi if they've passed Giant's testing protocol, which involves inflating them 1.5 times the tyre's maximum recommended pressure on a Giant hookless rim.

"Rather than relying on the tyre brands saying yes it is or no it’s not tubeless, hookless compatible, we’re working with all the tyre brands to our protocol," says Ward. "If a tyre is on our approved list it’s approved by us and the tyre brand. For example the Schwalbe Pro One – Schwalbe are 100 per cent happy to say yes, their tyres will work with our rims.

However, as with Zipp, the Continental GP500 TL and Vittoria Corsa are not on Giant's approved list.

"Conti have been very open to working with us and Vittoria the same and they want to change. All the tyre brands are seeing the benefits of hookless and seeing that hookless is going to get bigger and bigger, especially with Zipp getting behind it. If we could say the GP5000 TL and the Corsa and Corsa Speed were hookless compatible it would take down everybody’s defences. And I’m pretty confident that in two-to-three years’ time every new tubeless tyre will be hookless compatible as standard."

Not everyone is convinced as to the benefits of going hookless, though, with safety still a factor under debate.

Dov Tate, founder of British wheel brand Parcours, weighs up whether the key driver for hookless rim development is improved performance or cheaper manufacturing costs: "Manufacturing hookless is cheaper, that's not up for discussion," he says. "If you've got a hook you're talking about multi-dimensional moulding technology. Hookless is just a straight steel mandrel. I'm undecided on it.

"There is an argument that it makes for a slightly better rim/tyre interface in that you have a slightly smoother interface. Because the hook, if it's not well designed, will be putting inward pressure on the tyre making it slightly more lightbulb shaped.

"But the big issue hookless has at the minute is with pressure ratings," says Tate. "With big off-road tyres you're never going to be at the sort of pressure where you're running the risk of blowing off. But on the road, all the pressure recommendations on new hookless road wheels are really low", 72psi is the [ETRTO] recommended limit for a hookless tyre.

Tate continues: “Also some tyres, such as the Continental GP5000, aren’t compatible with hookless because the bead on the tyre isn't quite guaranteed to hold the seal.

“If you get the right tyre and rim you’re fine,” says Tate. “The problem is that because hookless technology and even tubeless tech doesn't have clearly defined standards, there are too many variables to be able to guarantee that every tubeless tyre will be able to fit on every tubeless rim above 72psi and that's why ETRTO haven't signed off on it yet.”

Tate says Parcours didn’t want to restrict tyre choice when it developed its latest wheel, the Strade, and argues that other brands have had to compromise in that area in order to have a hookless rim. “Whether they're doing that for performance or cost reasons, I don't know for sure,” he concludes.

Our view

It does seem high time that road cycling’s rim and tyre technology caught up with that of motor vehicles and mountain bikes, and hookless does offer undisputed benefits, but the current uncertainty over tyre compatibility could be off-putting for some. Other more traditional road cyclists could find the low maximum pressure off-putting despite tests demonstrating that with 28c tyres and bigger, lower pressure means faster rolling.

No: Dov Tate, Parcours

“It’s a fact that manufacturing hookless is cheaper. And there is an argument that it makes for a slightly better rim/tyre interface because that interface is slightly smoother. But tyre choice is restricted and maximum recommended pressure is low.”

Yes: Bastien Donzé, Zipp:

“The drawbacks at this point are really about tyre compatibility, but this is being addressed in the regulatory committees (ETRTO and ISO), and will soon become a non-issue. In summary, hookless rims are lighter, faster, stronger, more affordable and better for the environment. The end-user wins at every level, really."

In the past few years, indoor cycling has been completely transformed - from a means to an end that was only mildly more preferable to watching paint dry, to an entertaining form of exercise and a racing genre in its own right.

Like any emerging trend, this has resulted in an explosion of products available to enhance the experience – including an influx of indoor cycling specific clothing.

The most recent brand to join the party was Rapha - with a sleeveless technical t-shirt, vented 'indoor training cap', alongside the existing Cargo waist shorts also on offer in the “outdoor” standard range.

Back in 2018 Madison launched with the men's turbo bib shorts and jersey - both garments feature fast wicking fabrics with anti-bacterial properties, and the chamois has been specifically designed with indoor training in mind.

Interestingly, whilst Rapha promotes its Cargo core shorts, with pockets (perhaps for stashing the TV remote during intervals) the Madison jersey notably has its pockets removed.

Claiming to be first on the scene was The Sufferfest, with the ‘Suf Indoor Cycling shirt’ – a loose fitting technical top minus pockets and zips.

Founder David McQuillen told us: “Since keeping cool is critical to performing at your best, we created our SUF Indoor Cycling shirt as a super light weight, loose and comfortable garment that keeps you cool even when you’re working hard.”

So - do we really need indoor cycling clothing, or is it all a gimmick? And with brands sending mixed messages about what's actually required in a turbo garment - what does the ideal indoor cycling kit look like?

Former Lead Physiotherapist at British Cycling, Phil Burt, believes there is certainly a place for indoor cycling clothing. The expert bike fitter at the eponymous Phil Burt Innovation says that the number one consideration in a piece of kit created for the turbo is the chamois.

“You haven’t got air flowing over you to help out with heat management, and the forces involved are different to outdoor cycling – you’re sitting in a static position so have a lot more saddle contact time and increased friction.

“The chamois needs to get moisture away from the skin. It doesn’t necessarily need to get sweat out of the chamois – the pad can be heavy and wet after sessions long as your skin is dry. There are amazing ways you can layer your foam up now, and you can include channels to get sweat away from the skin too.”

Riding indoors, you’re much less likely to get out the saddle – in fact you might not do so at all if you’re a fan of training on rollers.

“The chamois you use when training indoors needs to manage pressure well. You want a pad that doesn’t bottom out completely when you’re loading it for a sustained amount of time, because then the skin and soft tissue will take that pressure.”

Discussing Madison's turbo bibshort, with its specifically designed chamois, apparel designer Rachel Preston said: “Indoor turbo training sessions get much warmer than outdoor rides due to the lack of natural airflow.  Sessions are usually short - 30 to 60minutes - but we did find that our riders would shuffle around a lot in their saddles.

"As a result we selected a pad that offered fantastic moisture management, and offered really good elasticity to accommodate the continual position adjustments between different types of riding efforts during their workout session.”

Five turbo mistakes 

Burt recommends increasing the comfort of your indoor sessions by training in a well ventilated room, enlisting the support of a good quality fan, as well as using chamois cream before and after sessions to “let the skin recover.”

Heat dissipation elsewhere is important, too, and this can be achieved by using a lightweight or mesh fabric.

“Your quads are a big surface area of skin where your body is looking to get rid of heat, that’s why they go so red when you’re hot. You really just want a mesh fabric there, this allows for heat dissipation and there’s no need for much else.”

It’s fair to say that not everyone is on board with the concept yet. British Cycling National E-Racing Champion, Rosamund Bradbury told Cycling Weekly that she’s yet to invest.

The former British rower explained: “To be honest, when training indoors I wear normal cycling bib shorts, like those I’d wear outside. Then obviously because you’ve got everything with you, you don’t need a normal cycling top - so I tend to wear the stuff we had when I was rowing – we called them ‘tea rags’ – but they’re base layers made from a mesh fabric.”

Having taken the National E-Racing title in March 2019, she’s eyeing the UCI World Championship scheduled for 2020, though taking it “step by step,” noting that the pool of riders experimenting with indoor racing is ever growing.

It’s likely the range of indoor cycling clothing options will grow in the coming months and years, but it remains to be seen if top athletes such as Bradbury will become adopters themselves.

The final say

No: Rosamund Bradbury, British Cycling National E-Racing Champion

“I think the most important thing is that your kit keeps you cool, as you get so warm inside. I don’t find I need an indoor specific chamois – but I think I do move around a fair bit anyway even indoors, otherwise it’s just too uncomfortable.”

Yes: Phil Burt, bike fitter at Phil Burt Innovation

“If you allow the area to get hot and wet and apply pressure, you’ve got a recipe for a certain type of saddle sore. Indoor cycling clothing, if it evolves, will help some people out.”

Our View

A quick poll in the Cycling Weekly office reveals that none of us are using indoor specific kit yet. The most important thing is that you’re well ventilated and the chamois is providing you with enough cushioning for the efforts you’re doing. Some riders will find they're able to meet these needs in their standard kit - but if you are experiencing discomfort, the indoor ranges may be your answer.

Stiffer, lighter, faster! It seems nearly every newly launched race bike aims for the superlative in all three of the holy trinity. Weight is easily quantifiable, aerodynamics ditto – but stiffness is more difficult.

Instead, we tend to hear ‘it’s 15 per cent stiffer’ than the previous model, or 'it's as stiff as the last model, but the weight has been reduced - so stiffness to weight is improved'. These more woolly claims are largely used because different brands have their own methods of testing stiffness, and a bit like the ‘mine goes to 11’ method of indexing shoe stiffness, the scales aren’t comparable.

The numbers don’t compare

Stiffness tests, in general, are completed by hanging weights from a frame and measuring flexion in millimetres. There are industry standard tests, which frames have to pass. There are standard testing rigs - such as those from Zedler, and it's possible to test all bikes in one rig and compare numbers. If you've got the rig.

>>> More power and longer life… should you be getting your frame faced?

But many brands have their own additional measures.

“We load areas that represent real-world riding experiences, as closely as possible,” explains Doug Russell, engineer at Specialized. “We got there over years of research, strain gauging bikes, to see what areas of the frame are being loaded or stressed, then we developed stiffness tests to replicate that as closely as possible.”

Italian brand Basso does go so fas as to give a finite number, testing the headtube and bottom bracket by inserting a lever to 30cm, and hanging a 50kg weight from it. The mm movement given is painted on to frames such as the Diamante.

The reason many brands don’t give a finite number is that they can mean very little to the consumer. Specialized’s road category lead, Stewart Thompson chimes in, adding “it’s difficult to say ‘it’s 4mm’ or ‘it’s 120 newton metres/mm’ – partly that doesn’t mean a lot to a lot of people, but also there isn’t one number that can measure stiffness, nor are most companies measuring it in identical ways.”

Stiffer isn’t always faster

There were days when frames weren’t stiff enough. As Russell confirms “In the early days of Tarmac we had riders like Tom Boonen who really highlighted the fact that we were lacking and inadequate in certain stiffness areas.”

Those days are behind us now, and most brands can make a bike that won’t handle like a noodle. Specialized says its focus is on responsiveness now, which often comes down to stiffness to weight. Yet for some, the pursuit of stiffness continues.

Lecturer at The Bicycle Academy and bike builder Tom Sturdy explains: “Theoretically a stiffer frame will be more efficient as there are fewer losses in the system.  In practice, I believe the answer is more complex.”

Whilst a stiff frame might, in theory, mean all the rider’s power is translated to forward momentum, in reality, it may cause them to fatigue more quickly. On uneven roads a lack of flex could be a detriment, in the same way hard tyres can be inefficient as they skit over the surface.

Both Sturdy and the representatives from Specialized confirmed that in blind tests, riders have failed to pick out a stiffer frame when directly asked. Instead, many find they're faster on a bike with more give - sometimes even attributing this to 'more stiffness'. Because 'stiffness' and ride quality are subjective.

“I have built frames that I know to be flexible relative to people's existing frame of reference yet will often get feedback that they feel stiff and riders are setting PBs,” Sturdy, builder at Sturdy Cycles, says.

“I think that what it ultimately comes down to is that in an absolute sense a stiffer frame will certainly convert more of a rider’s effort into useful movement. In reality though we have to consider the relationship between rider and machine and that is a bit more complex, it may well be that a rider is able to generate a more efficient effort on a frame that is a bit more forgiving resulting in a net gain in performance.”

Handling vs compliance

One area of confusion is the temptation to allow crossovers in logic between handling stiffness, and rigidity versus compliance. They’re different.

Handling stiffness is very much about how much the bike twists when we change our plane of movement. It’s critically measured at the head tube and bottom bracket.

“The tubes located on the lower “hemisphere” of the bike are the ones most directly related to the stiffness, reactivity and consequentially power transfer of the bike,” says Basso’s Josh Riddle.

“The head tube, bottom bracket, down tube and chainstays… out of these the areas with most torsion applied from the rider are the BB and head tube. Strengthening them makes for a snappier, more reactive, better handling frame.”

The targets for this stiffness – and resultant good handling - don’t change much between a road race and an endurance bikes, according to Specialized. What does change is the level of compliance afforded. However, whilst carbon layup does play a part, much of this comes down to other areas: geometry, the tyres specced, even adding suspension.

“Compliance targets in endurance bikes are different – for example, we’d put the FutureShock on. But the stiffness targets are relatively similar, if not identical. Those numbers equate a certain handling response.”

“If I go and ride the Diverge [adventure road bike], its very smooth and compliant, but it doesn’t mean it has low stiffness," Russell says.

How much the brand’s marketing material talks about stiffness also changes – largely to suit the priorities of the rider’s internal shopping list.

"[In marketing material] we speak accurately about the attributes of the bike, but we always just highlight things that are more relevant to a certain rider. There are more factors relevant to a gravel rider, but frame stiffness is a little lower on their list,” Steward adds.

Adjusting stiffness to rider weight

It’s very easy to make a small frame very stiff, and it’s very easy to make a large frame very flexible. The difficulty here is that typically smaller riders put out less power, so need less stiffness, and taller riders put out more power. Bike designers are effectively fighting physics at both ends of the scale.

Specialized says it does this by embedding more material into the smaller frames.

“We’ve never made a small frame that was not stiff enough, you’re always bordering on more stiff than we would like. A Tarmac SL6, in a small size frame, is not any lighter than a 56 because we purposefully put extra material in there that’s not as stiff, so you’d get more flex in there than you would a 56. That means our small bikes don’t chatter as much as a small bike from competitors,” Russell notes.

As he points out, this approach isn’t uniform. Sturdy says very few brands use a size-specific approach.

“Generally speaking [size specific tubing is] not something that is done as much as you might assume: most frames will be designed around a 'load case' that is set out in an internationally agreed standard. This test does not prescribe different loads for different sizes of bikes and so as a result when you benchmark it against this test most models will have fairly similar performance irrespective of size.

“Again, when producing a bike specifically for one individual I have the opportunity to optimise things a bit more but unless size-specific load cases are introduced into the agreed testing standards I doubt that the current situation would change much for mass-produced bikes.”

What about you?

As a consumer, if you want to buy a bike you’ll no doubt be bombarded with claims: this bike is 20 per cent stiffer than its predecessor and 20 per cent stiffer than the one before that – which frankly means nothing if you never rode the first one. So what do you focus on?

Well, it's unlikely the correct answer is 'buy the stiffest bike you can'. Closer to the truth would be: do your research, and test ride whenever you can.

“A lot of bikes are pretty good these days” Thompson admits. “Test ride a bike before you buy it, listen to bike shop advice, advice from reviewers. If I was a really tall guy, I might take advice from a tall friend of mine, or a tall reviewer, much more than I would from a smaller rider – and vice versa.”

Think about the kind of riding you're going to be doing and the sort of rider you are. Are you sprinting all-out, all the time?

"If you're opening up a sprint you might appreciate the all or nothing bike, if you're trying to hold an average speed over the course of a hundred miler maybe the more flexible one is best," Sturdy says.

If you're a smaller, lighter rider, bear in mind that not all frames will be adequately tuned - you might genuinely be experiencing a bumpier ride than your taller buddies on the same model.

Finally, whilst the frame is at the absolute heart of a bike, there's so much more to 'ride quality'. Asked if consumers are better off ignoring stiffness claims altogether, and focusing on geometry and componentry, Sturdy says "yes".

This week AbsoluteBlack released a chain lubricant which it claims will unlock dramatic power savings - and it's not the only brand to be touting the benefits of swapping this everyday consumable to a more premium option with the promise if performance gains.

Long gone are the days when riders had a simple toss up of either a wet or dry lube, or just slathering on any old 3-in-1. Now you can choose from an almost unfathomable variety of chain lubes including some pretty hi-tech versions that supposedly offer the ability to tap into lost watts.

Most known for producing impressively machined chainrings, AbsoluteBlack has brought to market GRAPHENlube, what it calls the 'world's fastest and longest lasting' lube.

As the name would suggest, this hydrocarbon-based lube (that's wax-based to you and I) is infused with graphene.

AbsoluteBlack is claiming that a single application will not only save between three and ten watts of power over any other chain lube but will also stay on the chain and be effective for up to 1800 kilometres of riding. These are big claims but AbsoluteBlack has the independently tested data to back it up.

In the double blind test, chains were prepared by Zero Friction Cycling, then numbered and sent to an external company which conducted friction tests at 250 watts and a 100 rpm cadence. Each chain had a 50km 'break in period' and heat and humidity were kept consistent.

You can see the data and comparison brands on the AbsoluteBlack website.

The results certainly impressed pro teams - and GRAPHENlube is now the official lube of UAE Team Emirates and supplier to Lotto Soudal.

Graphene carries many advantageous properties - an extremely low friction coefficient in all environments, more stronger than any known material and it can cling tenaciously to metal, protecting friction surfaces from excessive abrasion. In addition it repels water and is impermeable to air, reducing the likelihood of oxidation occurring on a metal surface.

Vittoria use it in its top-level tyre ranges and ill-fated British company Dassi produced a carbon frame impregnated with graphene. But the simple reason graphene isn't widely used is the cost; graphene is prohibitively expensive.

A 140ml bottle of GRAPHENlube comes in at £114.99, which is certainly an investment. However, it's an awful lot less than the cost of a new, aero optimised frame boasting a similar saving - but it won't look quite so pretty parked up outside the coffee stop.

The competition

AbsoluteBlack is not the only brand putting a big focus on chain lube.

Muc-Off, itself a producer of hi-tech lubes and nano-treated chains, has revealed that it has partnered up with two of the UK's leading research laboratories: the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) and the National Measurement Laboratory (NML) to undertake a detailed research project into bicycle lubrication.

The research’s primary objective was to create a fast, highly reproducible novel measurement and analysis process to determine and score lubricant performance and durability. It also aimed to assess the environmental impact of lubrication formulations.

It is hoped that the testing protocols and data gathered through the research will enable Muc-Off (and hopefully other lubricant producers) to test and improve its existing lubes. The results and findings are due to be released later this year.

In the mean time, here's what's currently available...

Muc-Off Hydrodynamic

Price: £17.99

Contact: Muc-Off

The Hydrodynamic Chain Lube is the first to be created by the Muc-Off research team in collaboration with Team Sky (Ineos). Created from a blend of esters coupled with aerospace quality based oil lubrication and extreme pressure additives. Creating a high strength film forming lubricant which prevents metal to metal contact to ensure peak performance, even under the most extreme workloads.

Silca Secret Lube

Price: from $44, UK price TBC

Contact: www.saddleback.co.uk

Developed in secret to aid Victor Campanaert’s latest hour attempt, Silca’s new lubricant is claimed to be have the lowest coefficient of drag outside of a full hot wax treatment yet far easier to use. This slipperiness is down to the use of dissolvable wax particles mixed with nano-scale Tungsten DiSulfide, a technology first used in Indy Car racing. You’ll need to really clean your chain before you can use it properly but it should be worth it.

CeramicSpeed UFO Drip

Price: €70 (£61.95)

Contact: CeramicSpeed

According to CeramicSpeed the UFO Drip lubricant is the world's fastest product for chains. It is applied like any chain lube and dries to form a hard surface. It is claimed to have 20% lower friction than the second fastest bottled lubricant in initial pre-ride friction, 83% lower than the second fastest bottled lubricant in post-ride friction and a 36% decreased drivetrain wear vs wet lubes. Each application should last a minimum of 200 kilometres.

UCI article 1.3.006 states that: “Equipment shall be of a type that is sold for use by anyone practicing cycling as a sport.”

One of the aims of this is to ensure that the team with the biggest budget doesn’t gain a competitive advantage by using prototypes or one-off specials that are unaffordable to others.

>>> Beginner’s bike fit: how to set up your bike

But while it helps level the playing field in pro racing, is it a good idea for the clubman, the weekend warrior, the fourth cat and the sportiviste to ride a bike with geometry designed for Geraint Thomas or Chris Froome? Should we try to bend our bodies into the same extreme positions as the pros when riding replica bikes?

>>> Road bike size guide: how to choose a bike that fits

“Amateurs can if they have the time to spend on the bike that the pros do,” says Phil Burt, former head of physiotherapy at British Cycling. “But most of the time amateurs have something else to do like a day job, so I think the biggest mistake people make is to try.”

But how is an amateur to know if the position on their new aero bike is too aggressive? “It’s normally the amount of drop to the front end,” Burt says.

“If you’ve got too much weight on the front end handling will become twitchy or too fast. Numb hands is a sign you’ve got too much weight on the front. Penile numbness is a sign that you’re rolling too far forward. That could also be the wrong saddle height but these are the general things. Back of the leg pain, hip pain, neck pain as well. If you’re that slammed at the front it’s like painting the ceiling for a couple of hours.

“But what you’re looking for is lasting pain that goes on for more than 24, 48 hours and if you know it comes from your position, you’ve got to do something about it. [As a physio] I would ask, can we do something about you or can we do something about the bike? The answer is normally a mixture of both. The bike is the quick fix and the person is the longer term project.

“A bike-fit might tell you to drop your front end 40mm and raise your saddle 30mm. That’s huge and I would say we’re not going to get there now, we’re going to go 10mm a week. We’re going to ride 50 miles in that position and not feel any aches and pains and feel like it’s better.”

However, Burt explains that what might be considered too aggressive for one type of cycling might be acceptable, desirable even for another.

“There’s a sweetspot for everybody and it’s different for everybody. What some people do is they find a really fast position in a wind tunnel or by aero testing and it can be really fast but if you move outside it every three seconds it’s not aero. It depends on the length of the events.

"If it’s a four-minute pursuit you can be really uncomfortable if you can tolerate it. If it’s a 50-mile time trial I would invest a lot in comfort and sustainability.”

Expert view

Giuseppe Giannecchini, Velosolutions

My father was a Gimondi fan and wanted to have exactly the same Bianchi that Felice used to ride. Geometries and materials have changed but it’s always been the way.

“I always invite people to try to look further than the marketing and ask: ‘Is the bike suitable for me and my type of riding?’ The answer to the question, ‘Is Chris Froome’s geometry suitable for my body?’ can be, ‘Potentially yes, why not?!’ Talking about aggressive riding, and pro versus amateur positions really doesn’t make sense. We all need to pedal in our own bio-mechanically correct position. Once that is achieved the adjustments between a novice and a pro’s needs are minimal. Comfort and performance go hand in hand.

“We need to be very careful when buying a bike because we are all different. I may well have similar proportions to Froome but do we both have the same pelvic flexibility? There are many aspects to consider; I might suit Mikel Landa’s geometry instead.

“Determining which frame geometries are suitable for our bodies, with a proper bio-dynamic fitting session before the purchase, is fundamental to avoiding costly, uncomfortable, performance-restricting and even dangerous mistakes.”

Rewind 30-odd years and I remember asking my cycling peers how best to rid my chain of the black gunk that seemed to encase it, my frame and if you’d asked my mother, pretty much all my cycling kit. Without hesitation, each replied either petrol or white spirit. So for a long time I used to keep a jar of white spirit in the shed for the sole purpose of dunking my chain in once a week. It certainly was effective but even then I knew it wasn’t good for the environment.

Leap forward to today and cyclists are a much better informed group. The environmental impact of our passion is something most of us are aware of and (hopefully) do as much as possible to mitigate any untoward damage. Making informed choices in the products we use and the way we clean our bikes is one of the most obvious areas we can make a difference.

As mentioned above, the products we use to undertake the hardest cleaning jobs, degreasers, can be the biggest culprits for environmental misdemeanours.

As most of us can attest, oil, grease and other contaminants form a barrier that water and normal cleaners cannot clean effectively. An effective degreaser needs to utilise solvents that can break down and clean this type of water-insoluble mess.

A solvent is simply a liquid that dissolves a solute. Water, for example, is a solvent but it can only dissolve certain types of compounds. In order to deal with grease

and oil-based grime, we are talking about solvents based around organic compounds such as ethanol and other effective but harmful solvent molecules.

>>> Can bike degreaser ever be environmentally friendly?

How do solvents affect the environment?

Solvents that utilise hydrocarbons such as paraffin and kerosene might be the most effective choice for getting the job done but can have a significant negative environmental impact. These types of organic solvent react in the atmosphere in sunlight, producing an air pollutant known as ‘ground-level ozone’. High concentrations of ground-level ozone seriously affect human, animal and plant health. When used in conjunction with cleaning your bike these solvents can also find a way into water sources to the detriment of aquatic life.

How can we lower the environmental impact of degreasers?

It’s important not only to understand the environmental impact of degreasers but also how you can mitigate this while still being able to effectively clean your bike. Much research and development has gone into creating more environmentally friendly degreasers. Muc-Off is a brand that has long been concerned by the potentially harmful effects of bike cleaning products. We spoke to product manager Andrew Syme about how the brand developed its Drivetrain Cleaner degreaser to be as environmentally friendly as possible while still maintaining its effectiveness.

“In order to enable our degreaser to do its job quickly and effectively, we have formulated a product based around organic hydrocarbon solvents, detergent/dispersants and emulsifiers,” Syme said. “Because of its superior cleaning ability, it means less is used during a clean and it is water soluble. Traditionally, solvent-based degreasers have been based upon paraffins and kerosenes, often with a high aromatic content which is known to be hazardous to aquatic life and potentially to people.

“The solvents chosen for Drivetrain Cleaner have been highly refined, are ultra-low in aromatic hydrocarbons, have very little in the way of odour and a high flash point to take them outside of the flammable category, enhancing safety.

"Muc-Off are mindful of our environmental responsibilities, so the development of this product involved the selection and use of components which would meet OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] criteria for biodegradability, so we are able to state with confidence that our product is readily biodegradable, based on OECD guidelines.”

He added: “Additionally, to further mitigate environmental impact, we encourage the use of an enclosed chain cleaning system, which limits exposure

to the product and its contaminants.”

Other brands approach things a little differently: Finishline has developed a waterless degreaser with its latest EcoTech product. It utilises soya-based solvents as its active ingredients and can be accurately applied to the parts that need cleaning. The fact that it doesn’t need to be rinsed off afterwards also limits the amount of contaminant that can make its way into the environment.

Greenoil, possibly the brand with the most impressive environmental credentials, has gone even further into eco-friendly territory, harnessing the power of plants fully with its Agent Apple degreaser. While still alcohol-based, Greenoil uses plant-based alcohols made from sugar, fermented apple extracts and to make it even more effective, orange peel extract. It can also be reused up to three times and still retain its effectiveness.

All of the above are good examples of degreasers that have taken approaches to be as environmentally friendly as possible. But there are still environmental risks with cleaning your bike and in most cases it’s probably the grime you are trying to clean that is the culprit, so always take steps to contain any grease and oil that can be washed away. Our best tip is to use minimal amounts of cleaning product and instead employ as much elbow grease as possible.

Create your own degreaser

■ Mix baking soda with lemon essential oil to create an effective and environmentally friendly degreaser. Citrus fruit extract is a great solvent for dissolving grease because of its acidic nature.

■ To make this degreaser, use lemon essential oil or lemon juice. Mix two cups of warm water, one tablespoon of baking soda, and 20 drops of lemon essential oil

in a spray bottle.

■ Spray on grease, leave and then just wipe away with a damp towel.

With infinite funds, the imaginary (or very wealthy) cyclist would be able to tailor their bike and equipment to the ride and conditions on a daily basis - a bit like an infinite dress-up flip book, no two occasions would yield an identical ensemble. The reality of course is that few of us are able to invest in the level of kit required to get it right every time. Perfection must be compromised on a daily basis.

This certainly applies to wheels: there is no such thing as one wheel to rule them all, but most of us cannot afford to construct a wheel wardrobe with a lightweight set for mountain rides, deep sections for dual carriageway time trials as well as something with an infallible hub for the winter. So if we're to have just one set - how deep should the rim be?

Aero over weight

The consensus is that aerodynamics overrides weight in all but the most mountainous cases.

Dov Tate, founder of British wheel brand Parcours told us: "If you run the numbers you literally have to climb Alpe d'Huez or equivalent before weight become more important."

The good news is that the capabilities of modern wheels mean that the weight penalty is often minor, anyway.

"These days, wheels are much more flexible in terms of use. The higher end wheels are getting lighter and lighter, and the aero benefit you get from a deeper wheels is almost always going to outweigh any weight penalty," Tate says.

>>> At what speed do aero gains become more important than weight? 

Looking within the Parcours range, as an example, the 77mm front/86mm rear Chrono set weighs in at 1625g vs the 40mm Grimpeur at 1320g: 305g. For reference, the full 500ml bidon sitting on my desk right now weighs 576g, and I wouldn't attempt my two hour lunch time ride without it.

All of this said, it's important to know that the biggest jump in performance comes in the move from a box section rim to a 30mm-40mm wheel with an aero profile; adding more depth is marginal gains territory.

Tate has run the numbers. Comparing a Parcours Grimpeur 40mm wheelset with a popular box section (standard, alloy non optimised rim), he discovered a 22.9W saving. Moving to the Chrono 77mm front/86mm rear pair, the saving was 29.7W - that's a 6.7W difference.

"A modern [well designed] 40mm wheelset will have an optimised rim profile, so even though you're losing out on the depth, you'd still see a benefit in a time trial or solo effort, when compared with an older style or box section rim," he says.

Additional research carried out by cycling coach James Spragg of Spragg Cycle Coaching found a difference of 3W when comparing a rider on a Specialized Venge with Roval CLX 64mm wheels versus Roval CLX 32mm wheels, when at 40km/h riding at yaw angles between zero and five degrees. The test was carried out in initial profiling of an athlete targeting the Etape du Tour.

Aero Lead and Senior R+D Engineer at Specialized Mio Suzuki agrees that a lot of the initial savings come from the jump between a traditional box section rim, and the wider 30mm-40mm group.

"I think one of the important aspects of choosing a deeper rim wheels is to know how well and precisely the rim shape is designed. It looks like a simple structure, but, the side wall curvature shape contributes a lot of both drag and side force. So deeper is not necessarily the better."

However, he still believes that there's merit in going deeper for those chasing speed. Commenting on the data collected by Spragg, Suzuki told us: "At that particular riding speed of 40km/h, and at those yaw angles (zero and five degrees), the numbers we have from our wind tunnel also demonstrate similar range of wattage gains."

Yaw angle is the degree to which drag deviates from forward motion. Pro riders sitting in a peloton and moving very fast will experience a low yaw angle, a solo rider battling crosswinds at 25kph will be experiencing high yaw angles.

"We have computed yaw angle profiles of an entire Grand Tour stages from a 2017 event. The computation was done for various power-to-weight ratio riders and the calculation considers the corresponding variation in speed and road gradient encountered so that we can truly understand where and when aerodynamics matters for all kinds of riders. Yaw angles above five degrees matter, and based on our internal numbers, the power difference keeps increasing to over 10W at higher yaw angles at 40km/h."

A saving is 10W could be huge for a rider who has optimised every other element - including kit and position on the bike - but if not, there could be cheaper ways to reap rewards. The human body on the bike accounts for the lionshare of drag on the bike/rider unit.

"There's far more to be gained in optimising position - for example spending your money on wind tunnel time - than spending money on wheels or whatever. You are 85 per cent of drag - so look at the big things first. When people think of wind tunnel sessions, they think it's super scientific and only for those looking to find marginal gains - but its not - we're getting the 85 per cent of the picture right first!" Spragg comments.

Windtunnel testing at the Boardman Performance Centre starts at £195, for an Aero Experience including 30 minutes in the tunnel, and extends to £695 for a complete Aero Fit.

Weight and control

The other part of the equation is control - there's little point opting for an 80mm rim if you're going to struggle to keep it in a straight line.

"As soon as you come out of your aero tuck on bars or drops, you're giving up more aerodynamically than you gain from the depth of the rim. So its no good racing a super deep front wheel if you can't hold an aero position with it, if that's the case, you should go with a shallower profile," Tate says.

"When considering this, I would look at your rider style, build and experience. A lighter rider is going to be more impacted by crosswinds when using a deep wheelset, and also handling a deep wheel does come down to some level of experience."

Mid-sections for most

When it comes to making that all important, single wheelset purchase, the overarching theme has to be compromise - but given advancements in technology, that compromise is perhaps not as great as previously believed.

"I would say choose wheels that are most tailored to what you do most of the time, with your riding style, level of experience and weight factored in," Tate adds.

"For most people the ideal would be a mid-section rim of 40-60mm; that'a a jack of all trades. But if you live in the mountains, look for something shallower - a modern 40mm wheelset will have an optimised rim shape, so even though you're losing out on the depth, it'll be faster than older styles, and it'll still give you an advantage even in a flat time trial.

"If you plan to focus on time trials, don't be afraid to look for an 80mm rim - they're not heavy and modern design means they're greatly improved in terms of handling."

A consensus is always reassuring - and we got that when we asked Suzuki the same question.

"Having evaluated many leading brands’ wheels and having designing some in my bike-industry career, my recommendation for performance or race-focused consumers would be 40mm-50mm wheels. But, if a consumer is weight conscious, and doesn’t like the feel of handling the deeper rim wheels, then 32mm is a good choice."

A cycle accident can leave a bike with busted bits, but that need not be the end. The broken pieces may not need to be discarded, as they may be fixable in the hands of expert carbonologists.

“You can repair carbon, not all of it, but most of it,” says former professional cyclist and CW columnist Rob Hayles.

Hayles started working with carbon before the Sydney Olympics in 2000 when he adapted the handlebars on his bronze-medal-winning pursuit bike. “It’s furthering my childhood obsession of building with Lego. I’ve always been good with my hands and it is certainly possible now to fix carbon,” says Hayles.

“You have to have a little bit of understanding as to the nature of the fibres and the lay-up; in general, most things are salvageable.”

With a frame, there’s a lot of surface area to work with, but there are limitations. Carbon, with all its qualities, also has its shortfalls. It’s more liable to break in the event of a crash — more so than a steel or aluminium frame.

Lightness versus strength

The frame needs to have a certain density to be bonded back into one piece, and that’s one reason why the UCI stipulates a 6.8kg minimum weight limit. As frames have got lighter, the tubing has got thinner, creating problems.

“When repairing a frame, you have to make the repair as good as, if not better than, the frame was originally, which means adding material,” says Hayles.

Modern oversized tubing offers more surface area, but at certain zones of the frame — such as the bottom bracket — it is difficult to add more material.

Wheels are another component that may undergo surgery to prolong their life. Again, wheels are expensive, so people want to repair them rather than put them out with the recycling. Safety can be a concern after repairs, and special care and expertise is needed with wheels.

“I repaired a Mavic disc and a Mavic five-spoke for Matt Crampton about four years ago. He’s on the track racing on them at the moment,” says Hayles.

“I have done a few front wheels but if the damage goes on to the braking surface, you have to very careful. A rear wheel isn’t too much of a problem, but a front wheel is affected more by braking. A tubular is easier to fix than a clincher. With clinchers, there are greater stresses on the rim from braking,” he adds.

>>> Is it the end for the 34t chainring?

“It’s even possible to mend parts of broken forks, depending where the damage is. I’ve done dropouts and a cracked steerer, but if it’s the fork blades, I’d recommend replacing them, as it’s not worth the risk. It’s the same as stems and handlebars.”

Our take

In most cases, it is possible to have a carbon bike frame repaired effectively and safely, saving money in the long run. But sometimes it is not possible. If the bike is insured, then it’s hard to see why you’d take the risk. Whatever you ultimately decide, seek professional advice — this solution is definitely for professionals only. Do not try to repair carbon at home.

Yes: Richard Matthews, carbon composite specialist, Cervélo

“Repairing a carbon composite frame is definitely possible but it’s a complicated process — one best performed by people with experience, knowledge and the correct tools. Original manufacturers and specialist composite bicycle repair companies are best suited to repair composite frames.”

No: Claire Beaumont, marketing manager, Condor Cycles

“We offer crash replacement at Condor. Most people who come to us with a broken frame have been involved in a serious collision with a car and the insurance company is paying for the damage. In which case, most choose a new frame — it’s always nice to get new things.”

Now that we’re staring down the barrel of winter, we need to protect ourselves against wet and slippery roads by fitting tyres with a more aggressive tread pattern for better grip, right? Wrong, says Vittoria’s Jon Heasman.

“With road tyres, any tread pattern is largely for confidence between the ears. It doesn’t actually provide any extra grip unless you happen to be going 80kph or faster. It just looks like it does, and instils confidence in the rider,” he says.

>>> November’s Tech of the Month: New S-Phyre shoes, a CatEye lightshow, Fulcrum carbon wheels and a big bike bag

Heasman explains that there’s a crucial difference between how road and off-road tyres grip: “Grip from a road tyre is adhesive whereas from a mountain bike tyre it’s mechanical.” In other words, it’s the rubber itself that sticks a road tyre to the tarmac, whether wet or dry, but it’s the knobs of an off-road tyre that supply traction in the mud.

To illustrate this, Heasman points to Vittoria’s Corsa Control tyre, a heavier-duty version of its Corsa racing tyre, which is slick with just longitudinal lines down the centre of the tread and a simple file pattern at the shoulders. However, it uses four separate compounds of rubber enhanced by the so-called wonder material graphene, and two surface compounds and two supporting compounds are incorporated each with specific grip, rolling resistance and rebound properties. The combination of these four compounds works in conjunction with a very supple casing to enhance the overall performance of the tyre.

>> Best puncture-proof tyres

“Casing is everything when it comes to grip and performance of a bicycle tyre,” continues Heasman. “Today’s UK roads are shocking and the more supple the tyre, the bigger the contact patch. This brings you a whole host of benefits including better comfort, better grip, better braking and better cornering. So it’s no surprise the best and most expensive tyres have the highest threads-per-inch counts and have cotton casings.”

The Vittoria Corsa Control has a 320tpi cotton casing where every fourth strand of cotton is replaced by Kevlar so that the casing is supple and also as strong as possible. Continental, with its popular Grand Prix 4 Season, uses a proprietary ‘Max Grip Silica’ compound optimised for wet-weather adhesion and low temperatures, and has five plies underneath a sixth cut-resistant DuraSkin puncture-resistant layer.

However, although winter-specific tyres will generally have a system for puncture protection built in, Heasman says it’s vital to keep an eye on the condition of your tyres and not assume that a Kevlar belt will keep out the flints forever. “Before and after every ride check your tyres over by running your hand around the tread to make sure you don’t have any small stones or objects stuck in there. They may not cause a puncture for that ride but if left, they can work their way through the tread.”

As for tyre pressures in winter, Heasman recommends as a general rule running tyres around 10psi lower in wet conditions. “But you should heed any minimum pressures indicated on the tyre wall,” he says.

My view

Shelley Childs - Brand manager, Continental Tyres

What’s the best winter tread pattern?

I guess that depends on where you ride. If you’re exclusively on good roads or main roads, then a slick or semi-slick tread pattern is fine, just like for the summer months.

If you’re venturing off onto some unclassified roads, especially in hilly areas, then a moderate grooved pattern may help in autumnal and winter conditions when these roads tend to be covered in leaves and mud.

Rear-wheel slippage can be an issue when climbing in these conditions and so a large grooved shoulder pattern that stretches over into the central tread area, like with the Continental Grand Prix 4 Season, is beneficial here.

However, if you look at the Gatorskin, for example, which is a dedicated training tyre, its tread pattern is even slicker than the GP 4 Season’s but it’s made from a German-made natural rubber that’s intended for high winter mileage.

Our view

Contrary to popular belief, you don’t need an aggressive tread pattern for wet tarmac since grip from a road bike tyre on tarmac at relatively low speeds is adhesive rather than mechanical, relying on the rubber compound rather than knobs.

However, although a summer tyre will grip just as well as a winter tyre, a dedicated winter tyre is tougher and offers better puncture protection so unless you use them you’re likely to spend a disproportionate amount of time standing by the side of the road while your club-mates get colder and crosser.

Mavic is often credited with, or blamed for — depending on your point of view — ending the era of handbuilt wheels and ushering cycling into the age of the factory wheel. Its distinctive red Helium wheelset, introduced into the pro peloton in 1995, could be bought by anyone from any Mavic dealer, complete and without requiring any of the wheelbuilder’s dark art to be performed on it in a small room at the back of the shop.

Although Mavic has continued to sell its Open Pro rim, probably still the most popular choice for a handbuilt wheelset, it’s hard to deny that buying a factory wheelset is more convenient.

>>> Best road bike wheels reviewed 2019: rim and disc wheelsets

It takes potentially bewildering choices about spokes and hubs out of the equation and since factory wheels are built and trued by machines — to varying degrees depending on the manufacturer and model — their performance and reliability ought to be identical, making it possible to do accurate online research before hitting the ‘add to basket’ button. Not only that — wheelsets mass produced in the Far East with a minimum of human interaction will inevitably be cheaper.

Which begs the question: Is there still a reason to buy handbuilt wheels?

“Simply put, a wheel builder can do things others are not willing to do,” says Malcolm Borg of The Cycle Clinic. “For example, if you’re a 120kg rider I would do a 32-hole front/36-hole rear with a stout rim like the H Plus Son Archetype with Miche or Shimano hubs and Sapim triple-butted spokes. A big wheel brand will sell one of its standard wheels and hope it will be alright.

“Added to that, many wheel manufacturers deploy peculiar reasoning in their wheel design. There are too many wheels out there which, on paper, should be good but somehow don’t feel right when ridden. And how many get spoke failures? It should be rare yet it’s common.”

One objection might rightly be that at least with a factory wheelset you know what you’re getting. How do you know whether a handbuilt wheel is going to be any good?

“It’s not about whether they are handbuilt or not — Campagnolo wheels are handbuilt, for example — it’s more how well designed and built they are. That means understanding the specification and how that determines how the wheel feels when being ridden and how the build/spec influences wheel lifespan. I have issues with many factory wheels where either the spec is not quite right or the build is not.

“One wheelset, for example, that many like but I do not is the Shimano Dura-Ace C24 9000. Many like them because they are light, they feel light and people like the hubs, which are reliable. The wheel, however, is laterally not very stiff at all, and radial stiffness won’t be as high as a 32-spoke wheel either.

"This means when standing up and accelerating the rim can twist because the spoke count is not high enough to prevent or limit this twist. If a higher spoke count (28 Sapim CX Sprint spokes) were used you would have a light-feeling wheel that feels like it responds better to hard efforts. It would also be more reliable.

"It would be slightly heavier but I dislike the idea of building something that’s compromised just because it sells.

“Then there is the build itself and how competent the builder is. I am fairly good at this but I can build a wheel that will fail if I build it with a light rim and low spoke count. I have done, and that’s how I know it fails.”

Borg makes the point that if a factory wheel fails it can be difficult for its owner to get it repaired.

“One reason I build my own wheels is that spares availability for ‘factory’ wheels is poor and I object to selling something that I can’t supply spares for.”

Finally, Borg has his business to think of. “There is also no margin in selling factory wheels, or not enough to make it worthwhile.” With many independent bike dealers having a tough time at the moment, the commercial factor has to be considered.

French wheel giant Mavic expanded its rim-only range to include the CXP Pro Carbon this year, so could that mean that the brand blamed for the demise of the handbuilt wheel is trying to make amends? Mavic acknowledges on its website that its rim-only range is for racers looking for perfect versatility.

In addition, Mavic says all of its factory wheels are handbuilt to some degree as it's not possible use machines for every step of the build process, and it ensures a high build quality. Michel Lethénet, Mavic's global PR manager, says the company's build system allows customers to get a fully optimised wheel straight out of the box at a more affordable price than purely handbuilt wheels.

"Whatever the wheels (handbuilt or factory-built), firstly they’re all finished by hand, and secondly, they finally perform depending on their construction pattern and the sum of their best characteristics," Lethénet says, "It all depends on the goal you seek and intended use.

"We are looking to deliver the best combination of performance and reliability with our complete wheelsets ready to ride mind free. We’re able to create the lightest or the fastest wheelset on earth but this is only one criteria and a wheelset is complex to optimise every single key aspect.

"What would be the point to create a wheel that is not safe, not stiff enough under high load and torsion, not possible to service, too expensive?"

However, the answer to the original question should be yes. Handbuilt wheels can be more expensive but they’re worth it for the extra choices of specification and customisation they offer, for the repairs that can be done more easily and for the better build quality that a skilled and experienced wheelbuilder can bring to them.

What is a tubeless rim? Think of a car wheel. When a car tyre punctures and flats, the tyre does not unseat from the rim. This is important because tubeless has to mean tubeless all of the time, not some of the time.

A tubeless-compatible bike rim also should retain the tyre well enough that it can be ridden flat or with very little air (5-10psi). I have done this for 10 miles then reinflated the tyre after fixing it with a plug.

>>> The best road bike tyres for 2018/2019

So why do some ‘tubeless’ rims retain the tyre when it’s flat while others let the tyre unseat?

True tubeless rims that comply with the Hutchinson/Shimano and Mavic UST standard have a centre channel so when the tyre is first mounted it sits in here. When you initially inflate the tyre, the bead is forced up onto the larger-diameter shelf either side.

A Mavic UST rim uses a bump next to the channel, which the bead crosses when it first inflates to ensure the tyre cannot unseat. Other rims have a sloping shelf that keeps the tyre bead seated and ensures there’s no going back into the central channel.

Unfortunately, some brands market their rims as tubeless compatible when really they’re not. If you look at the bead hook of a particular well known wheel company it doesn’t conform to what Mavic or Shimano or Campagnolo use. It is too small and is perpendicular to the sidewall rather than pointing upwards. But the customer doesn’t know that.

Making your wheels tubeless ready

Let’s assume you have a genuinely tubeless-compatible rim. If it has spoke holes you will need to fit tubeless tape.

Two complete layers are required normally. Some rims can be a bit undersized and need more layers. The tape should be pulled tight when fitting and pressed in place (I use my thumb) so that the tape is bubble-free and conforms to the rim, not obscuring the tyre-retaining features. Next, make a small hole with a sharp point for the valve hole. Push the valve through the tape and use a rubber mallet to tap the valve in place. Thread the collar tight and bingo, the rim is sealed. The tape should be 2-4mm wider than the internal width, depending on the depth of the channel.

How to mount a tyre and what to expect

A tubeless tyre on a tubeless-compatible rim should be fairly tight. As a rule of thumb, if it can be mounted by hand it’s probably not tight enough.

First make up a bottle of diluted soapy water and dribble over the rim. Mount the tyre and chase the slack before using tyre levers. Fitting the tyre dry is a mistake as if it’s tight you can damage the bead and end up with the join between the bead and the tyre carcass failing and separating. The tighter the tyre fit is, the more secure it will be. This is a good thing.

Once the tyre is mounted, inflate. If a floor pump does not get the tyre up, try compressed air. A CO2 cartridge will also work. The tyre should seat and seal. Not all tyre-rim combinations pop and ping when this is achieved. Inflate to a pressure where there are no low spots in the tyre. Let the air out. Then remove the valve core and inject 40ml of sealant for a 25mm tyre. Bigger tyres can use more. Then inflate again. If the rim has retained the tyre, this will be clean. A tight-fitting tyre means you won’t have to use compressed air to reinflate and that’s less messy and won’t dry out the sealant.

Which sealant to use

There are three types: latex-free sealant, natural latex sealant and artificial latex sealant. For road use, artificial latex sealants seal best at higher pressures. Examples include Effetto Mariposa, Orange Seal, MaXalami MaXSeal.

Puncturing

Your sealant is not going to seal everything. If your rim retains the tyre and if it is hard to push off by hand, don’t bother packing a tube as you may find it very hard to get it in anyway. Instead, carry tyre plugs (‘worms’). These tacky butyl rubber fibrous strips can repair a tyre permanently or fix a big slice well enough to limp home at a lower pressure.

>>> Buyer's guide to tubeless sealant

I carry 1.5mm and 3.5mm-thick plugs. Most punctures can be fixed permanently with these. I also carry a blade to cut the fat worms down before inserting.

Through the life of a road tubeless tyre I generally end up with plugs shoved in the sidewall and through the tread and they are in there for a few thousand kilometres. I should really stop riding road tyres off-road and down filthy lanes in winter but really where’s the fun in being sensible?

Tubeless tyres are not to be feared and much of the perceived faff is down to user error. I have learnt the hard way but hopefully after reading this you will have an easier time.

My view - Malcolm Borg, The Cycle Clinic

Why tubeless? If like me you ride over 200 miles a week you’ll go through a fair few inner tubes, especially if you like to ride nice, race-level tyres. With tubeless you actually can ride race-like tyres all the time, which give you decent reliability and where punctures most of the time fix themselves. If you do puncture and it doesn’t seal there are easy fixes, although I didn’t know that when I first started using tubeless tyres.

The other reason to ride tubeless is if  you want to improve comfort. You can run lower pressures when there’s no inner

tube in there. They aren’t necessarily faster, I’m not going to claim that, but there’s the comfort advantage, better grip and the ability to solve some puncture issues. I’ve got plugs shoved in my tyres all over the place but they will last the lifetime of the tyre.

When the Aqua Blue team folded and Adam Blythe angrily blamed the 3T Strada bike, claiming it was “a track bike with gears” saying, “you’re knackered – you can’t ride a one-day race never mind a two-week race,” onlookers assumed that marked the end of the road for 1x road bikes in the professional peloton.

The nail in 1x’s coffin appeared to be the launch of the Strada Due in July, a conventional double-chainring version of the Strada, with the brand’s Gerard Vroomen admitting: “Of course pro riders find themselves in a very specific situation, often going up mountains in a peloton surrounded by 100 riders with no choice but to ride the exact pace of those around them, not their own pace. In such a situation, where they can’t go their own pace, having that extra gear can be an advantage.”

But do you really have to scrap all the advantages of a 1x system, such as weight saving, better aerodynamics, simplicity, easy adjustment and clean lines, to go back to a conventional set-up? What if you just had more sprockets than the 11 that were at Aqua Blue’s disposal with their SRAM Force1 groupsets?

While 3T appeared to be giving up on 1x, or at least hedging its bets, Rotor, one of Dimension Data’s equipment sponsors this year, unveiled a 1x13 groupset at Eurobike. Although it’s still in its launch phase, the Spanish brand is confident that it’s headed for the pro peloton and revealed to Cycling Weekly that it had already been talking to 3T with regard to the 1x Strada bike.

Rotor engineer Carlos Carton, who led the 1x13 project, said: “With Aqua Blue we have seen that 1x11 is not enough. For that range, the steps in between are too big for these guys. But with 1x13 we can extend the range of ratios to match 2x11 and keep the same steps in between.”

Rotor has demonstrated that with a road-racing 2x11 set-up there are actually only 14 different ratios. Its 1x13 can match it pretty much gear for gear. In addition Rotor, which has six years of experience of manufacturing power meters, has data to suggest that slighter bigger steps when riders reach the larger sprockets are inconsequential and so 13 is plenty: “For example in our 1x10-36 we have 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 – the same as what they’re used to using. And then we’re opening a little bit the steps but we have seen with our power meter data that at slow speed the cadence range that you can afford biomechanically is bigger. So these bigger steps at the top of the cassette are biomechanically supported.

“So because of this we think it should not be so hard for it to be accepted by pro cyclists and the pro peloton. But it would hard to change minds when they are looking for victories and they are paid for these wins. So they don’t want to use something new or untested. So you have to break these mental barriers.”

My view

Paul McGuinness, global communication manager, Rotor

The confidence is going to be a big part of it. [Road riders] are going to be saying look, this is what I have on my current bike setup, will 1x13 give me the same or better range or better distribution of gears? We are preparing comparison charts that will show people without getting to scientific or too heavy-going that it will, and we have four different cassettes and range of chainrings so that they can match 50/34 and 11-28 or whatever 2x set-up they’re used to.

Obviously Shimano have a huge amount invested in the front derailleur. They don’t want to take away the front derailleur because they want their customers to buy more of them. And they also want to have different groupsets for different disciplines because that’s their business model. As a smaller manufacturer we can be a bit more agile.

Our view

Clearly the sticking point with 1x is the lack of ratios compared to 2x11, but Rotor’s 1x13 system fills in the gaps. Even if it takes the road pros longer to adopt it, 1x13 will be snapped up by everyone else.

In 2000, the UCI implemented a series of rules governing the design parameters for bikes used in competitions sanctioned by cycling’s governing body. Amongst them were stipulations that bikes must weigh a minimum of 6.8kg, that they should not have non-structural components and that tube profiles should not exceed a ratio of 3:1 between their height and width.

The first two of these rules still stand, but the UCI quietly dropped the 3:1 rule over two years ago. Not much has changed in bike design since though. In part this reflects the lead time to develop and test new aero framesets. But are more radical road bike designs likely to appear in future?

Although the 3:1 rule is no more, the UCI still has a raft of regulations governing bikes used in competition, designed to ensure equity between teams. Rules include constraints on frame shape, which exclude machines like the Cervélo P5X triathlon bike, which lack one of the main frame tubes.

>>> 12 changes to UCI rules and regulations you need to know before the 2019 season

There is also a rule stating that tube dimensions must not exceed 8cm in height or be under 2.5cm in width, with fork blades at least 1cm wide. Another rule limits the distance between the inside edges of the dropouts. So there continue to be constraints on frame tube profiles, albeit stated in a different way from the 3:1 rule.

Early aero framesets like the Cervelo Soloist had a teardrop tube profile. Effective aerodynamics over such a shape necessitates an elongated tail, which may require tube sections of greater than 3:1 ratio to be efficient.

>>> Should the UCI relax its bike rules?

But the modern trend is to use a truncated kammtail design, in which the trailing edge of the tubes is flattened off and the aerofoil shape is completed by turbulent airflow behind the tube, while a streamlined flow of air passes around this. Such profiles have allowed manufacturers to reap aero benefits while still staying within the 3:1 rule. Trek says that its Kammtail design mimics the airflow over an aerofoil with an 8:1 aspect ratio, whilst still having an actual ratio of less than 3:1.

Wind tunnel studies have become much more sophisticated too, so that small air pressure differences between tube profiles can be measured. And Kammtails require less material than a teardrop shape, so many aero frames are now almost as light as frames with round tube profiles.

>>> Best aerobikes aero tested and rated

One company which made an early move to take advantage of the scrapping of the 3:1 rule is Basque brand Orbea. Its Orca Aero was released in July 2017. The company worked with Mondragon University to analyse and test its aerodynamics.

Orbea’s Joseba Arizaga says that the main benefits from going beyond 3:1 were in making the fork blades and the chainstays more aero; dimensional rules governing main frame tubes and the need to preserve frame rigidity meant that there was less to be gained from changes here. Orbea says that its deeper fork alone saves 4 watts or 8.4 seconds over 50km.

Industry view

I don’t think that the withdrawal of the 3:1 rule for frame and fork will change too much. The design of the frame for example is more restricted by the limitation boxes of 80 x 25mm. Even now the maximum ratio you can realize is 80:25 = 3.2:1. On the fork blades and seat stays the minimum width still is 10mm, so now you can apply profiles which are longer than 30mm, but you still have the stiffness-to-weight requirements and this is also limiting your freedom of design.

To conclude: The 3:1 rule was sort of redundant, there are still other, even more restricting rules (limitation bars), so the bicycle design won’t change too much.

Michael Adomeit, Senior Product Engineer, Canyon Bicycles GmbH

Our take

Bike design has largely moved on from teardrop tube profiles, with truncated Kammtails providing many of the same aero benefits, with lower weight and greater crosswind stability. Bicycle aerodynamics has become a lot more sophisticated over the last 20 years too.

>>> Why you should always choose an aero bike over a lightweight bike (video)

So although we’re likely to see some manufacturers push the envelope on their road bikes’ tube profiles in pursuit of marginal gains, it seems unlikely that we’ll see radical changes, particularly with the rules on tube dimensions still in place.

But manufacturers who see a large enough market in non-UCI sanctioned competitions like triathlons, will still design and build bikes with more radical profiles, both for their aerodynamic advantage and head-turning looks. And sooner or later, some of these innovations will creep into road bike design.

Tubeless tyres: what’s not to like? You can run them at a low pressure without risk of pinch flats; you can also run them at an extremely high pressure without them blowing off the rim.

Thanks to the sealant that you inject into them they self-repair. Since they don’t have an inner tube they’re lighter and finally — and most compellingly — they are fast!

>>> The best road bike tyres reviewed: puncture resistant tyres and fast tyres

Road tubeless tyres’ rolling resistance is lower than that of both clinchers and tubulars due to the friction between inner tube and casing being eliminated.

Hutchinson and Shimano pioneered road tubeless in the mid-2000s and Française des Jeux became the first pro team to ride tubeless tyres. Philippe Gilbert won Het Volk in 2008 on Hutchinson Fusion 2s and the entire team used 28mm Hutchinson Intensives for Paris-Roubaix in 2009.

At last cycling seemed ready to follow in the tubeless tyre tracks of every other form of racing that involves wheels... but then it all went quiet.

Despite pretty much every wheel manufacturer making their rims ‘tubeless ready’ in the last few years and pretty much every tyre manufacturer with the notable exceptions of Michelin and Continental producing tubeless tyres, the professionals still prefer tubulars.

To prove it, Chris Froome won his last three Tours de France on Continental Competition tubulars.

Airtight argument

A tubular tyre and rim has the obvious advantage of being on average lighter overall since the tubular rim, to which the tub is glued, doesn’t have the rim walls that a clincher or road tubeless needs to secure it to the wheel.

On a more subjective level, pros also wax lyrical about the comfort or the ‘feel’ of tubulars.

But what pros like more than anything is the way tubs handle punctures. Because the inner tube is sewn into the casing, the air escapes slowly. Even when all the air has escaped it is still possible to ride the tub flat, as Froome did on stage 15 of the 2017 Tour before team-mate Michał Kwiatkowski gave him his wheel.

Abraham Olano famously won the 1995 Worlds riding the last kilometre on a flat rear tub.

But as we demonstrated this year in a video, a tubeless tyre can stay inflated despite multiple punctures by drawing pins, nails and glass — so it shouldn’t be necessary to ever ride one flat.

Another criticism of tubeless relates via safety and usability to standards: When we spoke to Keith Bontrager last year, he noted that: “The international standard [for tubeless tyres and rims] is fuzzy, it’s not guaranteed.

"Having a bunch of proprietary standards that aren’t compatible would be a nightmare. So there is an attempt, and it is a legitimate attempt, to try to make the interface between the tyre and the rim fairly universal.”

This year Mavic launched its UST [universal system tubeless] with 12 UST wheels and two new tyres — introducing a level of integration so far unseen in the tubeless tyre game. Thankfully, tyre/rim tolerances of within a millimetre should now end the standards “nightmare” Bontrager described.

>>> Buyer's guide to tubeless sealant

Will 2018 be the year the pro teams finally convert?

Expert take

Michel Lethenet, Mavic

“It’s coming slowly with the teams. For instance, Rigoberto Urán was using Mavic UST tyres at the Tour de France time trial in Marseille last year. He finished in an impressive eighth place at only 25 seconds off the winner!

“Professional teams are very conservative but when they’re open to test ride tubeless tyres and compare them with what they already use, they find them promising. It takes a while though.

“It’s not only the low rolling resistance the pro teams are interested in — they want it all: responsiveness, light weight and other pure racing criteria.

“For the regular [non-racing] user, you have to consider other aspects such as reliability, affordability, low and easy maintenance, easy installation, comfort…

“Ultimately I’m not too worried. The professionals will embrace tubeless soon as the whole approach is providing better performance and the improvements and integration in tubeless technology are moving fast.

“Which other rolling vehicle on the planet is not tubeless now, even in racing conditions?”

Our take

As Mavic’s Michel Lethenet says, pro teams are very conservative. Even Team Sky appear to have an ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ attitude towards road tubeless. But the technology is ready: all it will take is a big pro win by a high-profile rider on road tubeless and then the rest of the peloton will follow.

The UCI has been busily modernising bike racing, announcing changes for 2019 that include the introduction

of a new ranking system, increasing the number of riders on a WorldTour team, renaming the Pro Conti and Conti divisions, axing the World Championship team time trial to be replaced by a mixed event and reducing the number of wild-card invitations to Grand Tours.

But its bike rules are the same as they have been for the best part of 20 years.

>>> Should you change to winter tyres?

The permissible weight for a bike is still 6.8kg, despite huge advances in carbon-fibre technology in that time, and bikes must still conform to a template whereby, as the UCI describes in Article 1.3.020, “the frame of the bicycle shall be of a traditional pattern, i.e. built around a main triangle”.

The triangular shape is defined from a design using 8cm-wide boxes for each tube, and dates back to the UCI’s 1996 Lugano Charter, implemented in 2000, which “has the objective of preserving the culture and image of the bicycle as an historical fact”.

Among other things, the Charter banned ‘girder’ frames, monocoques such as the iconic Lotus, and bicycles with “extravagant shapes that do not represent bicycles as understood by the UCI”.

To reinforce this, the 3:1 aspect ratio rule forbids elements of the bike from exceeding these proportions; extensions of tubes beyond their 8cm boxes are banned, fairings are banned and so are integrated bottles that improve aerodynamic performance.

Worth a Tri

But with the launch of the new triathlon-specific Shiv, which has enormous storage boxes that also act as fairings, Specialized has turned its back on the UCI and focused all its R&D on triathlon.

Robert Egger, Specialized’s creative director, expressed his opinion of the UCI in no uncertain terms with the launch of the ‘fUCI’ bike in 2016 (no prizes for guessing what the ‘f’ stands for), which was a concept bike designed to be everything the UCI does not permit with its enormous rear wheel, curved, split tubes, fairings and even an electric motor to get it up to speed.

We contacted the UCI for comment but an out-of-office message indicated that our question would not be answered before we went to press.

So how much faster is the new Shiv Tri than the UCI-compliant version? It turns out there is no comparison data, although the divergence in performance is likely to have advanced considerably.

“We have actually had a completely separate product development programme for the Shiv Tri for the last three generations of this bike dating back to 2011, where the first generation Shiv Tri set the course record at Ironman Kona,” said Specialized’s William Watt.

However, unless the UCI changes tack, the WorldTour pros could end up stuck in a backwater riding outdated equipment while everybody else enjoys lighter, more aerodynamic and more modern bikes.

Tony Wybrott, composites engineer who worked on the original Lotus bike, which was banned by the UCI, now broadly supports the UCI rules as a way of limiting the cost of bike: “There should be some rules that allow Joe Public to ride something to close to what the pros ride. Then maybe leave the cutting-edge higher budget to those sexy triathletes.”

My view

William Watt, PR specialist road, Specialized UK

The UCI obviously only caters for a very small population of riders; they are the ruling body, and whether they are regressively prescriptive and restrictive on design or not, we would not wish to politicise their important role in professional cycling.

For those riders who need to be fully compliant with the UCI regulations we have the Shiv TT. There are many other riders who want to be able to ride fast on a road bike, and aerodynamic drag is the biggest force acting against them in achieving this goal.

Different disciplines demand different functionality in design integrated with aerodynamics. Long-course triathlon, for example, demands integration of hydration and nutrition storage.

The evolution in the fit of the bike, and the adjustability to achieve this for each rider, is also critical to optimise aerodynamic performance and biomechanical efficiency.

The new Shiv Tri is inherently unbridled by UCI regulation, and our goal was to develop the fastest and most complete bike for long-course triathlon, specifically Kona Ironman.

Our view

The new Shiv is the clearest indication yet that the big brands are not prepared to wait for the UCI to relax its rules and are willing to pour all their latest tech into a bike that completely tears up the UCI rulebook.

As the seasons change, so too does our approach to riding. First thing to be changed for most are the tyres.

After all, no one likes sitting in a ditch fixing a puncture in the freezing rain. But with new tyre technology, is it strictly necessary to change to the now traditional ‘winter’ training tyre or can you stick to ‘normal’ tyres all year?

What makes a good winter tyre?

A good winter or training tyre has to succeed in a number of different roles. Firstly, and most importantly, it has to be tough enough to get you through your ride without puncturing.

The inevitable rain and other adverse weather conditions bring multiple hazards which the tyre has to be capable of withstanding. Most use thicker casings made up of more layers (or plys) that create a physical barrier preventing sharp objects from cutting or penetrating the tyre.

>>> Pro rider tips for winter cycling

Additional materials such as Kevlar can also be used to increase puncture resistance. Manufacturers might also adopt a tyre casing with a lower TPI (thread per inch) creating a stiffer structure that’s more resistant to damage.

Continental’s UK brand manager Shelley Childs describes what goes into their winter tyres: “Our GP4Season is effectively a GP4000S II with additional puncture protection underneath the tread.

"The tread itself is thicker for higher mileage and extra protection. It also has a Duraskin external ‘sheath’ around the entire casing to better protect against scuffs and cuts.”

Wet-weather grip is also a very important consideration. While some brands offer specific rubber compounds that enhance grip in adverse weather, most prefer to utilise their better performing standard compounds.

>>> Winter road bike tyres: a buyer’s guide

Dave Taylor from Schwalbe UK explains: “Schwalbe don’t offer exclusively wet grip-specific tyres anymore, as compound development has come a long way. ‘Everyday’ compounds are perfectly capable of performing well in wet and dry conditions.”

Finally, and oft heard on the club run, there’s the perceived training benefit of using a heavier tyre. More rotational weight results in increased training loads,  leading, hopefully, to fitness benefits when changing back to lighter set-ups in better weather is the thinking.

Not everyone swears by the use of a training tyre though. The thicker, stiffer casing and multiple layers can have a detrimental impact on performance and the way a bike handles.

The difference in performance at the higher end is minimal but for more the popular, cheaper tyres there will always be a trade-off. Some budget tyres still use compounds that give poor grip when it comes to wet roads.

Get your bike ready for winter

All-weather options

Also, no pneumatic tyre can truly be puncture-proof (that’s why some riders have resorted to solid tyres). If your winter tyre does succumb, the stiffer carcass can make removing and refitting a hugely painful and tedious process. Not what you need in the depths of an icy rain storm.

For a lot of riders, using their ‘normal’ tyre choice year round allows a level of familiarisation with its characteristics.

Most manufacturers build a certain level of protection into their entire tyre range so, for those that opt out of going out in the really wintry weather, puncture protection is normally perfectly adequate.

Unless repeatedly suffering from multiple punctures, it might just be worth sticking to what you know.

Our take

Nobody wants to be caught out in the rain or cold with a problem caused by poor tyre choice. So why would you not want to fit a tyre with the best protection if it means completing a ride without the dreaded hiss?

Compared to tyre technology of the past, however, modern race tyres utilise levels of puncture protection and performance benefits that can see them being viable, year-round alternatives to winter choices.

Expert view: Should you change to winter tyres?

Yes: Bruce Dalton, Kinesis UK Elite rider

I favour a nice wide 30mm wide Schwalbe S-One. These get put on at the end of August and stay on until May! They are tubeless and super tacky which allow me to get on with my riding uninterrupted. Bigger is more grippy which results in less crashes; it feels faster and more comfy.

No: Chuck Buckley, Madison-Genesis team mechanic

Almost every member of the Madison-Genesis team chooses to use the same tyres year round. Our tyre of choice is Continental’s Grand Prix GT. It is used for racing as well as training in the UK so reliability and performance is crucial. It’s a great tyre for all-round conditions and durable to boot.

This story was originally published in October 2016

On the road, 2018 looked like it could be a revolutionary year for the single ring, with Aqua Blue Sport racing aboard the one-by specific 3t Strada aero bike.

But does news of Aqua Blue Sport folding, and the criticisms made by British rider Adam Blythe of the single ring setup signal the end of one-by on the road or just in the pro-peloton? Cycling Weekly decided to look into the potential of going single ring specific.

Straight away, there’s an appealing simplicity to a single-ring set-up. Losing the front derailleur is one antidote to that poisonous, acidic road gunk that gets flicked up and clogs the mechanism.

Second to that, it removes the bother of gear fettling and cable replacement, meaning less garage time and more ride time.

Plus, if you take SRAM’s 1x groupset out for a ride you’ll find the system noticeably quieter on the rough UK roads than a normal double. That’s because the rolling bearing clutch mechanism in the rear derailleur “eliminates derailleur bounce and chainslap”, according to SRAM.

However, discerning road riders will object, citing a loss of gears and too large a jump between those that are left. Indeed, a common complaint by folk out on the road is that they struggle to find the “perfect gear” and even worse, 1x set-ups can be pretty painful for the first few rides, especially if you get the gear ratios wrong.

Two or three teeth on the front chainring can make a big difference — the difference between riding up the climb and having to get off and push.

These were all criticisms levelled by Aqua Blue Sport rider Adam Blythe at the team's one-by specific aero bike. In a recent interview with Bradley Wiggins, the British rider said: "There’s only one chainring and if you imagine you’re doing a climb, normally you’d have a 38 ring to drop down to but now you’ve just got a 10 cassette that goes up to a 42 with a 50 chainring on the front. So you’re knackered, you can’t race around in a one-day race let alone a two-week race or one-week race".

Tailored to suit

Perhaps the one-by drive chain is too limited for the pro-peloton, but there could still be hope for the one-by drivechain with us amateurs, and it comes down to set-up. You could opt, for example, for a 42t chainring, to make hillier rides a little less strenuous. Alternatively, if you ride on the flat, a larger ring would be sensible to help you lay down the power.

We got in touch with SRAM to find out more and get some recommendations. When asked whether it was as simple as choosing a chainring carefully, it confirmed that was part of it, as was changing cassette sizes.

However, J.P. McCarthy, SRAM's road product manager didn’t stop there.

He also suggested so much of it comes down to understanding the needs of the rider and “understanding the rider’s top end; when it is OK to tuck and coast on descents,” as well as their “low-gear needs.”

Single-ring set-ups could be niche, then. It’s a case of tailoring your ride to you, because “problems perceived by one rider are not problems for others”, according to McCarthy.

With that in mind, it’s interesting to think of the possible uses of a single front ring set-up.

In an environment such as a time trial, where power and aerodynamics are everything, doing away with one of the chainrings is not an entirely new idea. It’s an environment where you know every inch of the course and can tailor your ride to suit it.

That said, racers raise objections, in particular the issues of chainline efficiency for one ring set-ups.

The inefficiency of cross-chaining on the bike could potentially lose valuable watts — something TT racers definitely don’t want to happen. We probed SRAM on whether this was an issue. Its answer? No.

“Loss of efficiency due to cross-chaining is minuscule. The benefit of selecting a gear that feels good and is easily accessed always outweighs potential loss of efficiency due to chain line.”

The future looks bright, then, for the single-ring in the world of time trialling.

For amateurs, its hassle-free, ease-of-use potential on the road is hard to ignore — at least for this rider anyway. Ultimately, though, it’s possibly too niche for roadies to get behind and having to know the ins and outs of the following day's route can remove flexibility — for many part of the joy of road riding.

Watch: Cyclocross bike buyer's guide

Expert Take

J.P McCarthy, Road Product Manager, SRAM

"Certainly here in Chicago, 1x is perfect year-round. In terrain that requires a greater gear range, the rider has a choice: with 2x, the rider has closer gear ratio steps, sometimes awkward and inefficient front shifts, complicated gear sequence, and potential for chainslap.

“With 1x, the rider has the full range of gears in one hand, larger gear ratio steps, sequential gear selection, and superior chain management. Loss of efficiency due to cross-chaining is minuscule.

"The benefits of selecting a gear that feels good and is easily accessed always outweighs potential loss of efficiency due to the chainline. And 2x drivetrains permit more extreme cross-chaining than 1x drivetrains anyway."

Our Take

For pro riders it seems like moving to a one-by chainring currently feels a little like a leap of faith. However, for amateurs the future looks cautiously optimistic, even if a lot of riders consider it a touch controversial.

But as a winter set-up, combining ease of use and minimal faff, along with its fitness-boosting potential, we find it very appealing.

If mountain bikers and cross riders can get on with it, then perhaps we can too.

Cycling is one of the most data-driven sports in the world. Watching Chris Froome, eyes glued to his power meter readout relentlessly tapping out an effort he can sustain, slowly clawing back his rivals, is enough to show how important numbers can be.

Away from the high octane world of motorsport, data gathering technology and analysis is the preserve of the professional athlete.

Cycling, however, is unique in that the average rider can access the same data gathering devices, from power meters to GPS cycle computers as the likes of Froome and the rest of the pros.

As the increase in demand results in power meters costing less than a new pair of shoes, more and more riders are finding themselves immersed in data recording and analysis than ever before.

Turn up to a Sunday club run and at least half of the riders will have some form of power meter or GPS device attached to their bike.

The start of a ride is accompanied by the various beeps of devices recording each owner's every move and effort.

And once the ride is completed, the first thing most will do is share that data with apps such as Strava. But has this obsession gone too far, do we really need all this data?

Smart training

In the right hands, used and interpreted correctly, cycling data is one of the most powerful tools in a rider’s arsenal. For competitive cyclists, data analysis can take the guesswork out of many traditional training techniques and help riders to train smarter.

Software such as Training Peaks allows coaches to analyse the information given and provide training plans tailored to the individual’s goals.

Team Sky are certainly a master of data — it’s no surprise that they employ a team of data analysts to help in the pursuit of victory.

And let’s not forget the fun aspect of competing with your peers when going for local Strava KoMs. However, there is a well-known phrase, ‘paralysis by analysis’ and nowhere else does it ring truer than in cycling.

Even though we can observe, measure and record an almost infinite number of variations on power, speed and cadence; do many cyclists actually use all these variables, all the time?

With a Garmin 1030 or SRM PC8 showing over eight data fields on one screen, is it now far too easy to get confused and stare blankly at the numbers?

Strava, for all its upsides, seems to be the bane of the social ride. When all you are thinking about is beating your mates to the top of the leaderboard, is there ever a time to just enjoy riding?

How many times has the phrase: ‘If it’s not on Strava it didn’t happen’ meant that a ride without recording data felt wasted?

The Velominati, with their tongue-in-cheek rules for cycling have this, final word, to say about data, “Forego the data and ride on feel; little compares to the pleasure of riding as hard as your mind will allow. Learn to read your body and learn to push yourself to your limit.”

Our take

Cycle computers and power meters are go-to tools for those looking to improve on the bike. And while data plays an important role in the life of the cyclist, we shouldn’t forget why we choose to ride in the first place.

Switching the computer off once in a while is certainly recommended to help you reconnect with the sheer pleasure and sense of freedom that riding a bike can bring.

When you do use data, do it right

Expert views

Paul Pickup, head coach at Pickup Sports Coaching

“There is a massive need for quantifiable, instant results from what we are doing, and with a power meter and a Garmin or equivalent device, you can have that.

"You can see straight away how hard a ride was, what impact it will have had on that rider and how best to carry that forward and progress their training.”

Jen Abercrombie, creator of ‘No Garmin, No Rules’

“The little screen on your stem shouldn’t dictate your ride. People should enjoy riding bikes without always thinking of mileage or power; maybe even get a little lost.

"‘No Garmin, No Rules’ is a movement, a revolution, a four-word manifesto; to counter this data-focused riding culture and to remind you that bikes are fun.”

Shimano’s road developers have traditionally borrowed from the company’s mountain bike tech: as far back as 1989, the Japanese company took the internals of its Rapidfire shifting system and created the first STI — arguably the biggest game changer in road cycling of the last 50 years.

Now Shimano has just launched the Ultegra RX clutch derailleur, a roadgoing version of its Shadow Plus system, testing it earlier this year at the cobbled Classics with the Trek-Segafredo team, whose RX-equipped bikes appear in Shimano’s PR photographs.

>>> Are single-ring chainsets the future?

The point of the clutch mechanism is to tension the chain to keep it in place when riding over rough and uneven ground, eliminating or at least decreasing ‘chain slap’ — when the chain lashes the chainstay, potentially causing damage — and the risk of the chain unshipping completely.

The RX derailleur has an on/off switch next to its upper pulley to activate the clutch or release it so that it works like a regular mech. The switch can’t safely be operated in-ride.

Slightly primitive-looking chain catchers were cobbled Classics riders’ only insurance against dropping the chain in the past, but now, with clutch derailleurs these shouldn’t be necessary at all.

Originally, clutch mechanisms were brought into mountain bike rear derailleurs to help keep chains under control when single chainring ‘1x’ systems gained popularity. SRAM, which now has 1x versions of all its road groupsets except Red, deploys the Type 2 clutch derailleur (which doesn’t have an on/off switch) to work in conjunction with the single chainring and lack of front mech.

Although Shimano doesn’t have a 1x road groupset — yet — the new RX opens up the possibility of a future foray as well as demonstrating the company’s commitment to the expansion of the gravel and adventure style of riding.

So clearly for the 1x application as well as off-roading, a clutch rear mech is a useful thing to have, but does it have a place in everyday road riding on a bike with a double chainring set-up?

Despite the worsening state of UK roads, chain slap is a relatively rare occurrence. Certainly the

big hits that would cause it are also likely to cause a pinch flat unless you’re running large-volume tyres.

Time triallists have long used single-chainring set-ups, attempting to streamline bikes by removing the front derailleur and other associated parts but this has led to some high-profile chain derailments, notably David Millar’s in the 2003 Tour de France prologue.

A clutch rear derailleur ought to be the solution, but along with the extra tension of the chain comes extra drivetrain friction and the loss of a small but measurable amount of efficiency.

In last year’s Tour de France Tony Martin used a SRAM-equipped 1x TT bike but rather than fitting a SRAM Force 1 clutch derailleur he used a prototype X-Sync chainring with wide-narrow teeth and a regular road derailleur.

Expert view: Ben Hillsdon, Shimano PR officer

“Riders have been pushing the limits of what a road bike is capable of for many years, evolving the sport from racing to encompass greater adventure. In recent years we’ve seen a broader definition of what a drop handlebar bike can look like; road wheels followed that by accommodating wider tyres. Now in a natural evolutionary step it’s time for drivetrains to evolve too.

“In the ‘on’ position the chain-stabilising switch [on the Ultegra RX derailleur] gives more control over excessive chain movement and chain noise over rough surfaces or in more demanding riding applications.

Seeing or hearing your chain jumping around can be a distraction when you need to be concentrating on the road ahead, whether that’s in a road race or just an adventurous ride off the beaten track.

“With road bikes now evolving to accommodate wider tyres, more road bike riders have the possibility to ride surfaces previously better suited to a cyclo-cross or adventure/gravel bike, so Ultegra RX provides riders with an additional option next to the wide range of riding styles our other road derailleurs also perform flawlessly in.”

Our view

It seems as though the clutch rear derailleur is not the game changer that the STI was, but with riders increasingly heading off-road away from the traffic and using 1x gravel-style bikes to do it, we can definitely expect to see more of it.

For everyday road riding with a double-chainring set-up you can get by without one, but the beauty of the Shimano RX derailleur with its switch is that you have the choice.

Time was any bike with racing pretensions was kitted out with a 53/39 tooth chainset; there's a reason it was called a "standard". That was paired up to a 9-speed 11-25 cassette to give you the ideal set-up for all your riding - assuming you were super-fit.

If you wanted lower gears you fitted a triple chainset. That gave you the lower range you craved, but at the expense of extra weight, mechanical complexity and a reputation for tricky set-up.

All that changed with the emergence of the "compact" 50/34 tooth chainset in the mid-2000s. At around the same time cassettes on top end bikes sprouted a tenth sprocket and better cassette designs like Shimano Hyperglide and SRAM and Campagnolo's equivalents, along with better derailleurs which could shift efficiently over wider ranges, made 11-28 tooth cassettes a reality, making hills something to be embraced rather than avoided and opening up road cycling to a wider audience.

Not the answer for everyone

The only problem with a compact chainset was that, with an 11-tooth smallest sprocket, faster riders and the rest of us on downhills with a tailwind were often spinning out. 

The mid-compact 52/36t chainset helped remedy that, giving a higher top gear but still providing a low enough bottom gear range to allow most riders to tackle the hills they encountered. It quickly supplanted the standard 53/39t chainset on more performance oriented road bikes, to the extent that it's rare to see the latter specced on a new bike today. The 53/39t chainset is left for the racers and even there it's a dying configuration, as we'll see.

The trend to ever-wider gearing has only accelerated with the emergence of larger and larger cassette ranges, while the concurrent increase in the number of gears up to the current 12 speeds of the best road bike groupsets has meant that jumps between gear ratios have remained narrow.

So the latest 12-speed Shimano Dura-Ace and Ultegra groupsets give you either 11-30 tooth or 11-34 tooth cassettes with single tooth jumps over seven gears for the former and five gears for the latter. Two generations ago, Dura-Ace R9000 could only handle an 11-28 tooth cassette.

The provision of even wider gear ranges is even more accentuated with the SRAM eTap AXS 12-speed groupsets, which pair smaller chainrings with cassettes that start with 10 tooth sprockets. That gives a similar highest gear ratio to a conventional chainset with an 11-tooth sprocket. But at the other end, SRAM's 12-speed cassettes, which head up to 33 teeth for Red and 36 teeth for Force and Rival give you even lower gear ratios than Shimano.

Even Campagnolo, whose cassettes once stopped at 29 teeth, now goes out to 34 teeth.

Higher ratios too

For the last few years, road bike gearing has got progressively easier. But strangely at the same time there's also a trend to higher ratios. 

With the release of 12-speed Dura-Ace R9200, alongside its 50/34t compact and 52/36t mid-compact chainsets, Shimano has released a 54/40 tooth chainset rather than the 53/39t standard chainset in the older Dura-Ace R9100.

Very much pitched at the racer, that's because Shimano says that speeds have actually increased in road races and there's a need for larger high end gears on fast courses. It also means that riders can potentially pedal one sprocket further up the cassette than with a 53/39t chainset, which leads to a straighter chainline, less articulation between chain links as they pass over the sprocket and hence less friction and improved drivetrain efficiency.

At the same time, the increased range spread of the cassette means that there's still the low gearing needed for when the race hits a climb.

Again SRAM goes even better with its 50/37t Red eTap AXS chainset paired with a 10 tooth sprocket giving you an even higher top ratio. In fact it's only Campagnolo that has a standard 53/39 tooth chainset still in its 12-speed range.

If you want a 53/39t Shimano chainset you'll have to drop to 11 speeds and opt for 105, while SRAM still offers an 11-speed Force standard 53/39t chainset. Those look like legacy configurations though and we wouldn't be surprised to see them phased out over the next few years.

Our take

There are so many groupset options out there now that there's really no reason for anyone to be riding a set of gears that doesn't give them the range they need. For the majority of road riders that means something smaller than a 53/39 tooth chainset paired with a cassette that gives them a wide enough range to meet both their fast riding and hill climbing needs.

For the racers, the option provided by newer groupsets of an even higher top gear range and fewer lost watts along with enough lower ratios to ride the climbs means that the days of the 53/39 tooth chainset must surely be numbered.

Over the past three decades the number of sprockets on a bicycle cassette has grown from six, to seven, to eight, nine, 10, and 11.

But the trend for more and more sprockets shows no sign of stopping, with SRAM release its 12-speed Eagle groupset for mountain bikes in 2017, and Campagnolo looking like it could be about to launch the first 12-speed groupset for road bikes according to a patent filed in the United States last year.

>>> Are single-ring chainsets the future?

The advantages of having more cogs in your cassette are relatively obvious: you can have a wider-ranging selection of gears, meaning less shifting on the front chainrings (an approach that SRAM has followed with its Eagle groupset which has only a single front chainring), and you can have less of a jump between the gears on the cassette to ensure a smooth pedalling cadence as the terrain changes (an approach that Campagnolo looks to be following with its 12-speed patent).

Already, the introduction of 11-speed cassettes has all but killed off the need for triple chainsets, which were introduced to provide lower gears. Now it is common to find cassettes fitted on road bikes that go as low as 32-teeth, coupled with a 34-tooth inner chainring. And you can still have a 50t chainring and 11t highest gear at the back for those fast descents.

Pros and cons

The disadvantages of increasing cassette size are perhaps slightly less obvious. Despite manufacturers reducing the physical width of the sprockets on the cassette, the gaps between them and the width of the chain, the width of the cassette has slowly crept up.

However, the distance between the dropouts on frames has not changed. The only way to accommodate the larger cassette is to ‘dish’ the rear wheel, so that the spokes on the drive side are shorter from the hub to the rim. This has certain strength implications; as you may remember from your school physics lessons the strongest shape is an isosceles triangle with equal angles at its base. Rim manufacturers have experimented with ways around this — some using offset spoke holes to reduce the effect of dishing.

>>> Should you worry about chainline efficiency?

Having less of a gap between sprockets is a double-edged sword when it comes to shifting performance. Less of a gap means less leverage needed to ship the chain from one cog to another. But that also means that there is less tolerance to misaligned derailleurs, sticky cables and worn chains. Of course, this isn’t an issue with the new breed of electronic gears that auto-adjust themselves.

Another drawback is that it’s tricky to upgrade. You cannot simply slap an 11-speed cassette on a 10-speed bike, and the same would be true of 11 to 12-speed. A new shifter and swap to a narrower, compatible chain and chainrings to achieve an efficient drivetrain.

Watch: Shimano Dura-Ace R9100 review

One on the back, one off the front?

Weight is also an issue — more sprockets means more metal. This weight gain has been largely negated over the years with the use of lighter materials, and careful drilling and machining of parts to lose mass, but in some instances this has had a negative effect on longevity.

>>> Is the compact chainset dead?

Bikes with two or more chainrings will have a crossover of gears: the lower selection of gears when in the large chainring is equivalent to the higher selection of gears in the small chainring. This is to give you a wide spread of gears no matter which chainring you are in.

SRAM has a selection of single-ring groupsets designed for road bikes, having previously introduced them for the mountain bike and cyclo-cross markets. This single-ring set-up at the front has weight and mechanical benefits, both in terms of the missing ring and also the missing gear shifter and cable, although it can never replace the full range of gears in a double-ring set-up. Maybe this is where the appeal of a 12-speed cassette really comes in.

Our take

None of the big drivetrain manufacturers has a 12-speed road groupset on the market, as there are still gains to be made in honing the performance of current 11-speed set-ups and in further development of electronic gears. However, the prospect of ditching mechanically inefficient front chainring shifts in favour of a lightweight, wide-ranging 1x12 set-up is an enticing prospect for some applications.

Your time trial set-up is a compromise. The most aerodynamic position in the world is no good if you can’t sustain it over a given period of time or if it’s only fast at zero degrees of yaw — when there’s no wind at all.

Elbows narrow and hands together with thumbs or fingers overlapping is becoming the favoured position of many top pros including Tom Dumoulin, but some still ride with hands further apart on wider-spaced extensions. Which should you go for?

>>> Who’s quicker? Experience vs talent in the CW time trial challenge

With aero testing now more accessible, it is now possible to establish in a matter of hours whether your hands should be up, down, together or apart. But 10 years ago, trial and error was the only way.

“We got it wrong in 2008 because we were working in a wind tunnel that didn’t do yaw,” says multiple national champion and competition record breaker Michael Hutchinson. “So what we produced was a position that was fabulous in zero yaw, but a bit mediocre as soon as there was a crosswind.

“The two best rides I did in 2008 were the National 10 — 18.07, which in those days was quite good,” continues Hutchinson, “and the 50 comp record [1:35.27 to beat Kevin Dawson’s 11-year-old mark by nearly two minutes].

"For both of them the day was dead still and I went incredibly quickly. Every other race I did that year there was a bit of a crosswind and I was very, very average. I won the National 25 by less than I won the National 10, against more or less the same people, just because the 25 had a crosswind.

“When we went back the following year we did test in yaw, and we got a much better handle on making sure we weren’t optimising for super-low yaw on the road. We were trying to win races, not set PBs or break comp records.

“We did go through a phase of saying, well we’ll have a low-yaw position and high-yaw position… and we modelled courses. But the problem is, courses don’t go in a straight line and every time a lorry drives past, your yaw goes haywire, so in the end you have to come up with a compromise position and stick with it.”

What in Hutchinson’s experience makes the difference between a fast hand position in a crosswind and a slow one?

“In 2008 the position we came up with had the hands high but it was quite stretched out as well, with a gap between the hands of maybe 100mm. As soon as you’ve got any yaw you’ve suddenly got a lot of interference in the gap.

“So optimising for zero yaw would give you a couple of sensational days a year, but you’ll get a lot of days where you’ll feel that it didn’t quite go. Equally, if what you wanted was to set a blinding PB, maybe you optimise for low yaw on the basis that there will be that one day when you’re going to go best.”

Expert take

Xavier Disley, AeroCoach

www.aero-coach.co.uk

“Your hands are the first thing that hits the wind, setting the tone for what’s going to happen with the airflow around the rest of the body. Even ignoring things like stack, you could find 20 watts just by sorting elbow and hand position.

“If you have your hands clamped close together, generally speaking that’s quite good. With a rider who has a very narrow position, we’re looking to move the air around the entire system, around their shoulders and head rather than through.

"But sometimes for very wide riders you need to open the hands to allow the air to channel through the body and out around the hips. This was the position the GB team pursuiters used to use.

“These days there’s a trend for going towards a very, very high hand position. That works when you’re going very quickly at lower yaw angles. But as you see higher yaw angles, the super-high hand position can fall apart a little bit aerodynamically. For most riders who are looking to perform at a range of different distances, speeds and conditions, we try to avoid the very high hand position.

“As a starting point, have your hands slightly above your elbows, make sure your elbows are at least in line with your knees and not too far in; hands with no more than a 15mm gap and ever so slightly higher than your elbows.”

Our take

Cycling aerodynamics is fiendishly complicated and very dependent on the individual’s body shape, not to mention speed and yaw angle.

If you’re guessing at it, go for the ‘compromise’ hand position described by Xavier Disley, but if you really want to go faster, go and get aero tested — and don’t get the hand tattoos until then.

We all know what a pain it can be to pack a beloved bike into a bag or box. We spend hours carefully securing and lagging the entire frame, and stuffing as many bags of clothes into the carrier in hope of further limiting any potential damage.

We then heave all 23kg around, up and down stairs, into transport and finally to check-in at the airport, where it will spend the next few hours enjoying the tender loving care for which baggage handlers are renowned.

>>> Best bike bags and boxes 

However, with popular training destinations like Majorca and Lanzarote fully utilising the cycling seasons they have, we are seeing more and more options to bypass that hassle and hire a decent quality bike when you arrive.

“Most bikes on offer these days are so much better maintained and of a higher quality than a few years ago,” says Dominic Conroy, co-owner of Revolution Bikes in Lanzarote.

“When hiring from us, you have peace of mind that the bikes are regularly cleaned and maintained.

“Cyclists taking their own bike need to ensure they have a good, strong box for transportation, dismantle the bike themselves, get it to and from the airport in a suitable size taxi or minibus and then rebuild it at the other end.”

>>> Saddle height: how to get it right, and why it’s so important

Although a carbon bike hired for six days will set you back around €120, much of this may be offset against not only the hassles of transporting a bike yourself but the extra cost you might pay getting to and from airports with your cumbersome bit of luggage, not to mention the handling charges many airlines impose on carrying sports equipment.

Make the most of your training camp

Conroy adds that a hire company may provide additional support during your stay. “If there is a problem while the cyclist is out and about, we give back-up,” he says.

“The customer has peace of mind that someone will come and help get them back on the road.”

>>> How to carb load before an event or race

Italian bike brand Pinarello has taken things another step further, opening a ‘Pinarello Experience’ store in Puerto Pollensa, Majorca.

The idea is to let customers indulge in something a little special on their cycling trip and offer potential Pinarello owners the chance to try before they buy. The company’s Brigitte Padewski says it helps that the brand has strong ties with the island.

“Having Bradley Wiggins’s bike at Tolo’s bar, people see that and think, ‘It’ll be great to hire a Pinarello,’” she says.

>>> Should you slam your stem: yes or no?

Hire charges at the Pinarello Experience start from €30 a day for the Razha right up to the Dogma F8 with Di2 for €100, which Padewski says is the most popular option.

Before you cough up and saddle up, though, spare a thought for your biomechanics. Osteopath Alice Monger-Godfrey argues that riding endless miles on an unfamiliar bike may not be the cleverest thing to do.

>>> How can osteopathy help cyclists?

“Your body gets accustomed to riding the same bike,” she says. “Our bodies can take a lot of time to adapt to even small changes. Riding your own bike at a training camp reduces the risk of injury.”

For some cyclists, taking their own bike has proved disastrous, with bikes getting broken or lost in transit.

>>> Listen to your body: don’t ignore the warning signs of injury

But former pro Monger-Godfrey doesn’t buy this as an excuse: “From my experience taking my own bike away with me has been absolutely fine. I am very careful when packing my bike in a bike box.

"I have had no problems and have always enjoyed riding my own bike when on training camps.”

Pro training tips to get you riding faster

Our take

Travelling with a bike bag may be a pain, but there will be benefits in terms of injury prevention, ride confidence and the knowledge you’ll be training on a bike you’ll later be hoping to perform on.

>>> 10 best ways to make your bike more comfortable

Usually riders will take their best bikes to training camps too, so to get an equivalent in rental may be expensive. However, if it’s a hassle-free holiday you’re after, or you want to test-ride the best, hiring is now a more attractive option than ever.

Should you hire a bike for a training camp?

Yes: Phil Griffiths, owner of Pinarello Experience

“Taking a bike abroad is an inconvenience and in many cases just as expensive as hiring a bike at the destination. We take this pain and worry away. People can relax knowing that they have a top bike, serviced and ready waiting for them. The new store offers a great touch point for consumers, offering an opportunity to engage with the brand and to test before perhaps making a purchase when they return home.”

No: Alice Monger-Godfrey, AMG Osteo Clinics Ltd

“The main downsides to using a hire bike when riding a lot of miles on a training camp is the bike may not fit you properly and therefore may mean you are uncomfortable when riding. This in turn might lead to injuries such as knee pain or neck pain.

"If you do not feel 100 per cent comfortable on a bike it can make you feel nervous when going downhill or around sharp corners and reduce your enjoyment on rides.”

Although you’d expect rubber to be just rubber, tyre rubber is actually made up of around 30 different ingredients which have to be mixed carefully and in the right order for a predetermined time to create the desired compound.

As well as rolling resistance, manufacturers look to ensure that a new tyre will provide grip, durability, puncture resistance and comfort, all in a lightweight package. The formulation of the compound plays a major part in determining many of these properties.

>>> Clinchers, tubulars and tubeless – which tyre system is the fastest? (video)

The rubber at the heart of the compound can be a mix of either natural or synthetic. And natural rubber comes in different grades, with fewer impurities when it’s lighter coloured. There may be up to three different grades of rubber in a tyre compound, with different physical characteristics.

As well as the rubber itself, a compound will include sulphur. This cross-links (or vulcanises) the rubber, using pressure, heat and steam to harden it. There will also be different plasticising agents and carbon black added to the mix, which increases wear resistance and longevity.

When French brand Hutchinson brought out its latest Fusion 5 tyre range in early 2016, it initially used a compound it called HDF5. But materials scientists in the company’s R&D labs knew they could improve on the compound’s physical characteristics.

More like this

Is the compact chainset dead?

Should you always ride with data?

The result was the new ElevenSTORM rubber compound, which Hutchinson has used on all the tyres in its latest Fusion 5 range since May 2017.

Hutchinson uses a range of techniques to create the desired characteristics of a new compound.

Nuclear magnetic resonance scanners, like those used in hospitals, are used to determine the rubber’s structure and degree of cross-linkage, while electron microscopy is used to examine the structure, layering and bonding of the rubber layers and X-ray tomography determines the internal structure of the rubber and investigates the effect of wear on the compound.

The results of ageing by ultraviolet light, ozone, heat and water are also investigated, to ensure that a new tyre will continue to perform well over time, while its rheology lab tests physical characteristics and response to mechanical pressures.

Real-world testing

As well as lab tests, tyre companies run real-world tests on new compounds. Before the launch of its latest Power range, Michelin tested the tyre extensively at its outdoor test facility in Clermont-Ferrand, France.

It tested the tyres’ rolling resistance against its older tyres and the competition, with test riders covering a 2.75km test track at a constant power.

Michelin also tested the tyres’ susceptibility to cyclists’ two bugbears — punctures and skidding — using a section of track with wet, sharp gravel. Grip was tested by a rider on an e-bike.

Clad in motorcycle leathers and a full-face helmet, the rider rode in circles on a wet 20m-diameter skidpan to test the tyres’ grip to their limits.

Finally, Michelin pushed out its prototype tyres to 200 testers, who rode some 200,000km on the tyres over three continents prior to the launch of the Power range in 2016.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUwtBDZpooI

Expert take

R&D manager, Hutchinson tyres

“We’ve taken a radical approach to reformulating our premium road cycle tyre compound in our Innovation and Research Centre, totally revisiting our approach and formulation processes to surpass our goals of better rolling performance, increased grip, and improved longevity.

“On the way, we’ve developed predictive analysis models, letting us match the theoretical properties in our labs to practical results with our pro teams.

“Hutchinson used its combined experience and knowledge of compound formulation to hit the performance target for its latest generation of rubber. At least 40 formulations were tested by our chemists.

“A specific dedicated compound mixing process has also been developed to get constant optimal mechanical properties combined to a high level of component compatibilisation. These should allow us to further improve our rubber compounds and tyres’ performance in the future.

“We are now working hard to extend the new compound ElevenSTORM family to tubular tyres — the first results are already outstanding.

“Hutchinson identified the project to reformulate its tyre compound three years ago and is very proud of the result.”

Our take

A great deal of R&D goes into creating a tyre compound and indeed, as is clear from Hutchinson’s Stéphane Gonnet’s account, the chemists working for the big tyre manufacturers take intense pride in creating compounds with ever-improving rolling resistance, grip, comfort, puncture resistance and light weight.

It’s easy to focus on sexier trends like bigger width, tubeless-ready, more aero tread designs and cool-looking tan sidewalls, but with the rubber being the only thing keeping you upright and rolling, tyre compound is literally at the core of your tyres.

Until Mark Cavendish swept to victory in the 2011 World Championship road race wearing a skinsuit and adapted Specialized aero road helmet that had its vents covered with transparent plastic, aerodynamics had been something talked about in hushed tones by nerdy time triallists.

Several years on, aero road helmets have now been adopted by the peloton and trickled down to the masses - but do they make enough difference to be worth the investment and loss of breathability?

>>> Common sense rules for modern road riding

The argument against the need for aero helmets in road racing is that drafting behind another rider requires approximately 30 per cent less power than riding out in the wind, but what if you could increase that to 36 per cent by judicious application of knowledge gained in the wind tunnel?

>>> Best road cycling helmets

That would allow a sprinter like Cavendish to arrive at the finale that crucial little bit fresher than his rivals, and of course the slipperier helmet and clothing would help him outdrag the other fastmen in the dash for the line.

How much time and power do aero road helmets save?

A properly-fitting time trial helmet compared to a standard road helmet is worth about a minute over 40km, according to Michael Hutchinson, multiple national time trial champion and author of Faster: The Obsession, Science and Luck Behind the World’s Fastest Cyclists. For slower riders the gains can be even bigger.

“A fully-vented normal helmet is the least aerodynamic thing in the world you could put on your head,” says Hutchinson. “It’s about as aerodynamic as a sombrero. It’s designed to swirl air around your head, it’s designed to create turbulence. You’re better off without a helmet at all. And you’re certainly better off with a cloth cap.”

Aero road helmets such as the Giro Air Attack  and the Specialized Evade — helmets for bunch racing that have appeared since Cavendish’s groundbreaking Worlds victory — offer a saving that is somewhere between a full time trial helmet and a vented road helmet. Giro claims the Air Attack is 17 seconds faster over 40km (ridden at around 50kph) than its 24-vent Aeon. Hutchinson, however, warns that this figure could vary depending on the shape of the individual rider and their riding position.

>>> Cycling training plans: get fitter, ride faster and go further

He points out that the aero helmets themselves even use different approaches: “The Giro Air Attack is very, very round and the Specialized Evade is much longer,” says Hutchinson. “And they probably work differently for different people.”

For riders looking to reduce their aerodynamic drag in individual time trials, Hutchinson says that for him a long-tailed aerodynamic helmet is faster than a short, stubby one such as the Kask Bambino, as used by Team Sky, providing the tail sits neatly on his back. In addition, it’s crucial to be able to hold that position.

A glance down at the computer or sprockets sends the tail up into the airflow and the advantage is gone. By contrast, short-tailed helmets such as the Bambino are more forgiving. They may not be as fast in a straight line at zero degrees of yaw, but they perform better in a wider variety of positions and wind angles.

>>> New aero helmets on show at the Tour Down Under

“If you can’t find a [time trial] helmet that sits neatly on your back, you’re probably better off with something like the Bambino,” says Hutchinson.

It’s precisely because there are so many variables that aerodynamics is so fiendishly complicated. Hutchinson has spent years testing headgear, only to conclude that: “In the end I don’t feel as if I know that much about it. Aero helmets make you faster, yes, and after that the answer to everything is: ‘I don’t know, I’d need to put you in a wind tunnel’.”

The cons of aero road helmets

Makers of aero road helmets generally achieve their wind cheating appeal by cutting down on the number of ventilation holes in the helmet. Sometimes there will be a couple of vents, purposefully placed to maximise their performance, but there will almost always be less than a standard lid.

The result is usually limited breathability, and sometimes a slightly heavier construction. The Giro Synthe is an example of a rare breed of aero helmet which is still able to offer good ventilation.

Aero road helmets: yes or no?

Our take

Clearly an aero helmet does make you faster by a measurable amount, but it’s not quite free speed because the reduced ventilation means you pay in heat build-up. Unless you live in a cold climate, we would probably not recommend an aero helmet for use as your sole, everyday lid. For the occasional Sunday suicide break, however, go for it.

Yes: Michael Hutchinson, author and time trial champion

“The difference [between a standard road helmet and an aero one] is not trivial. If you want to go faster, you will go faster with an aero helmet.

“I can’t understand why anybody who has any notion of getting involved in a long breakaway in a road race wouldn’t wear an aero road helmet. You might be out there for a couple of hours and over the course of a couple of hours you might well save a couple of minutes.”

No: Jon Sharples, TrainSharp coaching

“Let’s remember Greg LeMond won the Tour by the smallest margin in history. If Laurent Fignon had also worn an aero helmet and used tri-bars Tour history could have been very different.

What about the rest of us? I often say to our riders that spending money on a light/aero piece of equipment will give a few seconds once, but you will reap the benefits of investing in your own fitness over and over again.”

What's the best aero road helmet?

We've had the pleasure of testing a host of aero road helmets - here's what we thought of some of the top choices on the market..

Lazer Bullet aero road helmet

Price: £219

Score: 8/10

Read our full review of the Lazer Bullet aero road helmet 

Making its debut at the Eurobike trade show of 2017, the Lazer Bullet aims to offer comfort and breathability as well as an aerodynamic advantage. A sliding vent allows you to close it when you want the extra speed, but you can lift it up when you need a little more air.

Bontrager Ballista aero road helmet

Price: £129.99

Score: 9/10

Read our full review of the Bontrager Ballista helmet 

Worn by Jens Voigt during his successful tilt at the Hour Record, the Bontrager Ballista has plenty of pro support behind it. We found it fast (our tester put it to the ultimate trial with a long breakaway during a road race..) - our only gripe was the lack of sunglasses inserts.

Giro Synthe helmet

Price: £194.99

Score: 9/10

Read our full review of the Giro Synthe Aero road helmet 

A pretty pricey lid - but the Synthe does what few can - offering tried and tested aerodynamics as well as a high level of breathability thanks to lots of vents.

The Giro Air Attack is another option - but overall we do prefer the additional venting on offer from the Synthe.

Specialized Evade Helmet

Price: £160

Score: 9/10

See our review of the Specialized Evade aero road helmet 

As described above, the Evade has a longer shape when compared with an Giro Air Attack or Giro Synthe. But we tested it on long climbs and found the ventilation did the job whilst the shape carries with it plenty of aero kudos.

Geraint Thomas and Mikel Landa of Team Sky debuted a brand new, secret skinsuit on stage 10 of the Giro d’Italia, which was noticeably different from the Castelli Bodypaint 3.3 suits worn by the rest of the team for the time trial.

Sky had been working with researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology since 2016 and claimed to have taken a “completely new approach” to what has been done before; rethinking the fabric and way the suit is put together.

>>> Which aero bike is actually the fastest? (video)

Can some esoteric fabric really make that much of a difference or was this the latest example of Team Sky deploying psychological warfare?

Bioracer has supplied World Championship and Olympic-winning garments and is arguably the most experienced in the field.

“Bad fabrics will lose you a race, but you can’t always win with good ones,” says Sam Ratajczak, Bioracer’s development manager.

Different fabrics work better in different speed bands, Ratajczak explains. Bioracer, which has a long history of supplying world and Olympic champions, supplies three different materials.

There’s a fabric suited for speeds of 48-53kph (developed for top time triallists and road racers), another for speeds of 60-73kph (aimed at giving pro road sprinters the edge) and yet another for 38-45kph.

Watch: How much faster is an aero bike?

Bespoke ballistics

Not only are fabrics speed specific but they are also body-position specific. Xavier Disley of AeroCoach (aero-coach.co.uk), an aerodynamics testing service which also offers skinsuits designed with British company Nopinz, explains: “Different parts of the body have different requirements in terms of the way the airflow moves over them.

The airflow over your lower back is going to be entirely different from the airflow over your forearm or the front of your shoulder.

“With the Nopinz/AeroCoach Tripsuit we have a smoother fabric on the leading edge — the areas that face the airflow such as the front of the upper arm or the shoulder — since you have cleaner air.

"Then after the air starts moving around the body you get low-pressure eddies and the pressure gradient changes, so you want to have things like raised seams — ‘trips’ — or rougher fabrics in order to manipulate the airflow, to make it go where you want it to go.

"As soon as the airflow detaches from the body you have an area of low pressure and that area, like an eddy on a river behind a boat, is a source of drag that sucks you backwards. So you want to minimise that low-pressure wake behind the body.”

What sort of savings can a rider expect from a skinsuit made with correctly positioned seams and aero fabrics?

“We have a good comparison between the ‘flat’ skinsuit, the normal suit that Nopinz calls the Supersuit, and the Tripsuit that Nopinz makes,” says Disley.

“The Tripsuit is between six and 10 watts faster at 45kph. That equates to a saving of somewhere between 25 and 40 seconds over 40km.”

If Sky has developed a skinsuit that offers even greater savings than that, Chris Froome’s attempt to win a fourth Tour de France may have just got a little bit easier.

Expert take: Xavier Disley, AeroCoach

Do you need aerodynamic fabrics?

“For road riders, something like the Nopinz/AeroCoach Trip Jersey that we make is designed for the road position. If you have well-fitted bibshorts and one of our Trip Jerseys, it’s as quick as some skinsuits.

“If you don’t upgrade your current kit, just make sure it fits well, making sure you’ve pulled it down properly. Avoid baggy bits around the shoulders, which is quite common. That huge baggy section at the back of the neck and the tops of the shoulders — that’s not aerodynamic.

“If you go from a really terrible club skinsuit to a Nopinz/AeroCoach Tripsuit you can double the savings of 25-40 seconds over 40km [of the Tripsuit over the basic Nopinz skinsuit].

“Rather than buying a Cervélo P5 or whatever, making sure you’ve got the right skinsuit actually represents incredible value for money.

“Generally speaking, the biggest savings come from aerobars first; a good, well-fitting skinsuit and aero helmet second. Things like frames, wheels, tyres come after that.

"But if you’re coming from a flappy jersey and ill-fitting bibshorts then a good skinsuit could potentially save you as much as aerobars.”

Our take

Clearly the surface area of the body is much greater than that of the bike or the wheels, so garments that improve airflow over your body could not only save you watts but also thousands of pounds.

Even the most sophisticated, custom-fitted pro-level skinsuit is many times cheaper than a new aerodynamic bike.

Ten years ago a sub-kilo frame was the ultimate in composites engineering. Now 700g is the new kilo. Can carbon frames go much lighter without compromising safety and rideability?

Here in the UK, Richard Craddock of Filament Bikes hand-builds carbon frames using a tube-to-tube construction process that allows him to customise every aspect, including the weight.

>>> Is graphene cycling’s next game changer?

“When I design the laminates for my custom carbon tubes I want them to be firstly reliable — to be durable and last a long time,” says Craddock. “Secondly, they have to be strong. The rider can be up to 100 times heavier than the frame, and peak loads occur when hitting bumps or potholes in the road.

“Thirdly, they have to be stiff, to transfer efficiently the pedalling forces into forward motion. Lastly, they have to be light — to climb and accelerate easily.

“So the question for me would be, how light can a carbon frame go while still delivering the required performance?” asks Craddock.

“With current materials science, once a frame dips below a certain weight it has compromised on some of points one to three, so that’s

not desirable.”

“A 400g frame could be made and ridden but it wouldn’t be a very good ride and it would be more susceptible to damage, and not just in a crash: transport, handling, small knocks, stone strikes, dropped chains, workstands and roof rack clamps would be some of the hazards to very thin laminates using very high-modulus fibres that are very brittle.”

Enter graphene

However, another British manufacturer, Dassi, is convinced it could make sub-500g carbon frames in the very near future thanks to adding graphene — something that, although used in other components, at the moment no other frame manufacturer is using.

Stuart Abbott, founder of Dassi and a former Rolls-Royce aerospace design engineer, explains: “Graphene is a British invention — discovered at Manchester University in 2004. It’s taken a long time to get it to a point where we can produce it in bulk and make it useable in physical applications.

Even to this day, they’re still discovering the benefits of graphene because it’s not completely understood — it’s a wonder material. As far as we know we’re the only ones to be using it and that’s because we have a global licence with two of the biggest graphene suppliers on the planet, who just happen to be UK-based.”

Graphene is a form of carbon and is added to the epoxy resin that is used with the carbon fibres to build the prepreg sheets that make up a frame.

“Graphene acts like a two-way Velcro,” says Abbott. “It binds itself to the epoxy at an atomic level. It also binds itself from the epoxy to the carbon-fibre, which gives you an incredibly strong bond. Graphene is typically 25-30 per cent lighter [than non-graphene carbon] but up to 70 per cent stronger.

“At the moment we’re at 600g but we’re targeting 500g,” adds Abbott.

Expert view

Stuart Abbott, CEO, Dassi

“I’m waiting for the first monocoque, aero-profile, graphene frame to come out of the factory any day now targeting 600g. As soon as you start to address the aerodynamic properties of a frame you start having to increase the size of the tubes and their profiles and that adds more weight.

"What graphene allows you to do is keep the same tube size in relative terms, but take away the amount of material you’re having to apply because it’s typically 25-30 per cent lighter but up to 70 per cent stronger.

“How light could a frame with graphene go? We’re trying to get 500g out of our R&D process. When we get a frame back from the manufacturing facility we’re looking for fatigue tests, the ISO impact tests and we’re looking to compare that with the finite element analysis [FEA] that we do with the guy who designed the Airbus 380’s wing.

“We’ve got to a point now where based upon the weight of the rider we can put that into our FEA model and give a target weight of the frame if we modelled it for the weight of the rider rather than taking an average Joe of 90kg. So we might happily be able to go below 500g for certain riders if we’ve got their weight.”

Our take

Graphene is a gift to the cycle industry, allowing carbon frames to be ludicriously light, stiff and strong. Dassi’s Stuart Abbott even claims it has vibration-damping properties, which he plans to test in the coming weeks.

The UK is leading the way in this new technology and it can’t be long before the big brands get into graphene and 500g carbon frames become the new normal.

Upgrading your wheels is the most efficient way to reduce your bike’s weight and increase its performance. Are carbon rims now, more than ever, a cycling rite of passage?

Mike Cotty, brand ambassador for Mavic and Cannondale and who knows his way around a carbon monocoque, puts the act of riding a bicycle and gaining fitness and experience first.

“Get out and see where your cycling is going,” he says. “When you’ve got to a level where you can start making improvements for specific reasons, I would say that’s the level where the carbon wheel debate comes in.”

>>> New British brand proves that carbon wheels don’t have to cost thousands of pounds

Carbon-fibre is not only light, strong and stiff but is also perfect for creating aerodynamic shapes.

Cotty says: “If I was back riding in the New Forest where it’s mainly flat I’d have a 40-50mm aero rim because I can wind it up, get it rolling and there’s not a lot of hills in the way.

"But if I’m in the Pyrenees, I’ve got my lower-profile 25mm wheels — still carbon — a set of Mavic Ksyrium Pro Carbon SLs which I’ve lived with for the last couple of years.

"They’re amazing in the mountains because they’re super lightweight.”

Improved technology

In the past, carbon wheels came with certain provisos: if you braked too much on a descent you’d melt them.

The other side of the coin was that in the rain the brakes wouldn’t work at all. Cotty dismisses these concerns.

>>> Buyer’s guide to road bike wheels (video)

“If you come from what I’m going to call the old school, where you had a respect for carbon and its limitations, your experience allowed you to ride that product generally without problems.

"But now there’s resin that’s very resistant to high temperatures. Mavic may not have been first to market with a carbon clincher but from being involved in their product testing I know they don’t want to put something out there if it’s not up to the job.

"They use Mont Ventoux a lot and have had a 100kg-plus rider with a fully laden rucksack on his back going all the way from the top to the bottom dragging the brakes to prove the thermal resistance of their resins.

Watch now: How to use your brakes properly

"Their lab testing is awesome when you see it but nothing beats real testing when it’s 35°C and the road’s melting and they’re saying, ‘Yes, that’s still within our parameters.’”

“To go out and enjoy cycling you don’t need the highest-end kit,” adds Cotty, who is part of the Col Collective, an organisation that aims to inspire and educate cyclists.

“Ultimately, as long as you’ve got well-functioning, well-maintained kit you can do pretty much anything on what you’ve got.”

>>> Do you need deep section wheels?

Established brands

Cotty sums up: “I would say if you want carbon wheels, look to the more credible manufacturers who have been in the industry a long time.

"Make sure you have confidence in what they’re about and what their equity stands for. And if you’ve got any doubts about a wheel don’t ride it.”

Five years after Sir Bradley Wiggins became the first Briton to win the Tour de France riding oval rings, Chris Froome continues to use Osymetric chainrings on his Team Sky bike.

Wiggins reverted to round rings towards the end of his career and continued to win at the highest level, including the World Championship time trial. Froome has ridden them since 2011, and has since won three Tour titles using the Osymetric rings.

In addition to Osymetric, Rotor’s Q-rings continue to be used by a considerable number of professional riders. But should you consider using a cam-shaped ring?

Jean-Louis Talo, a mechanical engineer from Menton, France, produced a prototype Osymetric ring and has spent 22 years trying to convince the cycling world that it works.

“You can alter the design so that you give the leg muscles work to do where they are at their strongest and less work to do where they are weak," says Talo.

"A round chainring gives you work to do where you are weak and takes power away from you where your legs are strongest. A bicycle chainring is round because at one time that’s all factories knew how to produce.”

Great in theory, but does the non-round ring actually work?

Marginal gains

Tim Kerrison is the performance director at Team Sky, the sports science chief who oversees the training of the team, with particular attention paid to the ‘GC group’.

Kerrison has been instrumental in the successes of Froome, whos has used Osymetric rings on his time trial and road bikes.

Kerrison isn’t a mechanic — bike or bio — but he obviously pays close attention to his riders’ power outputs and equipment. What is his opinion of the rings?

“I’d say that, performance-wise, there is very little in it either way,” said Kerrison. “A few riders have a preference for the Osymetric rings, but many of our riders have tried them. Only a few continue to use them.

“That said, both Wiggins and Froome used them in the 2012 Tour, so they are unlikely to be significantly detrimental to performance.”

The credible tests and research that has been done is inconclusive, according to Kerrison: “Crank-based power measurement systems [e.g. SRM, Quarq] appear to over-report power when using Osymetric rings, which is probably due to the variable angular velocity of the crank throughout the pedal revolution.

"In other words, power reads higher, but this does not correspond with an increase in the power actually being generated by the rider.”

>>> Build your cycling strength with big gear efforts 

Professional cyclists tend to have very efficient pedal strokes, with minimal dead-spots. Perhaps these rings may be more beneficial to the amateur or beginner, helping to iron out a more pronounced dead-spot.

Potential benefits aside, the risk of dropping a chain appears considerably higher, as Sean Yates, the directeur sportif in the 2012 Team Sky car recalls.

“At the Tour, the Sky mechanics were told that dropping the chain was not an option. So they designed a chain guard to make sure that wasn’t going to happen.

"You can drop a chain from round rings too and it’s not really commented on, but with Osymetric it’s a big deal.”

Do they work?

Yes: Dr Mark Pharaoh, Founder of Peekrings, supplier of chainrings for Sarah Storey’s Hour Record attempt bike

Oval chainrings can improve the feel and smoothness of your pedalling action, reduce dead-spots and improve the activation of your glutes and hamstrings.

Set up correctly, you shouldn’t be able to feel the oval. At Peekrings, we use the force curve from a Wattbike test (or some power cranks) to tailor the position of the oval relative to the cranks, so that every oval ring we make is specific to the rider.

No: Paul Barratt, English Institute of Sport on the biomechanical elements for British Cycling

The studies looking into tangible measures of performance are mixed, to say the best.

The claims made for non-round rings is that they delay the onset of muscle fatigue in the quadriceps. The evidence isn’t there to say that it preferentially alters the loading on different muscle groups.

It’s not to say the notion of a non-circular chainring should be dismissed, it’s just there isn’t the evidence out there to support the claims made for them.

Our take

The jury is out regarding the mechanical basis for non-round rings. However, from a psychological point of view, the case in their favour is more compelling. A placebo has the potential to offer a significant performance gain.

That said, the disadvantages of lower-quality shifting and the potential chain drop are significant, especially in a race situation.

Should you go for an aero bike or a lightweight bike? Should you ride deep section wheels or lightweight climbing hoops?

Assuming we all want to go as fast as possible, we first need to consider the point at which the advantage of reducing aerodynamic drag begins to beat lighter, less aero equipment.

Jean-Paul Ballard is an aerodynamicist, engineer and co-founder of Swiss Side with over 14 years’ experience as a lead engineer in Formula One teams.

According to Ballard: “Aerodynamic drag becomes the largest resistance a rider must overcome from 15kph onwards.”

Conventional wisdom suggests that if you are undertaking a mountainous event, the biggest gains will be had from the lightest kit possible.

>>> 17 of the best international sportives to ride in 2017

If you ride a gran fondo or hilly sportive and plan to average 25kph, should you be more concerned about aero or weight?

Ballard is adamant: “Aerodynamics definitely trump weight at an average speed of 25kph and we can show it clearly.

"At Swiss Side we have developed some very powerful simulation tools for calculating time over any course for any configuration.”

Citing a specific example, Ballard explains:

“We ran a simulation for a 120km ride with 1,000 metres of climbing and an average speed of 25kph. If we take an 80kg rider, on an 8kg bike, we get an average power output of around 150W.

"Now we can compare a five per cent improvement in aerodynamics on the bike with a five per cent reduction of weight from the bike.

>>> Compare these super-lightweight hill-climbers’ bikes

"This comparison represents the typical difference you would see between a lightweight set of climbing wheels with a set of aero wheels.”

Watch now: Aerobike vs Lightweight: the climbing test

So which configuration saves more time on this course for this rider?

The five per cent aero improvement saves 3min 30sec; the five per cent weight improvement saves 20 seconds.

Pursuit champion Dan Bigham has also worked as an engineer in Formula One and has used his expertise to help win national track titles.

>>> Katie Archibald and Daniel Bigham conclude domination of Track National Champs

He attests: “Aero matters even more to amateur riders at modest speeds, because although their speed and drag is less in absolute terms they will save more time because they are slower and on the course longer.”

Is there any situation in which a lightweight bike is a better choice? According to Ballard:

“In all cases except a mountaintop finish and an uphill time trial, the aero bike will always be the faster choice.

"Even when drafting in the peloton, the drag reduction is still measurable and important.”

To contextualise this, Ballard suggests that for pro riders, “The average gradient of the entire course where weight becomes more important than aerodynamics is 7.5 per cent.”

For an amateur, “It lies around 4.5 per cent because they are slower.”

These are generalisations and the exact numbers will depend on the individual, but in essence all the evidence suggests that you have to be doing an uphill time trial or a summit finish to justify opting for the lightweight, non-aerodynamic bike set-up.

>>> Canyon enters lightweight arms race with 4.85kg Ultimate CF Evo SL

Bigham suggests another scenario where lightweight can triumph:

“If you are an amateur not constrained by the UCI limit, and you can have a 5kg bike, then lightweight could be worth going for, especially if you are not the best descender and the speed at which you descend is not limited by aerodynamics, but skill.”

Despite being shunned by many, some pro riders included, disc brakes are increasingly featured on modern road bikes, particularly the popular endurance category.

On higher performance machines, hydraulic systems have largely replaced cable-operated brakes too, giving higher braking efficiency and better modulation. But along with that comes the increased potential for hard braking leading to heat build-up in the pads and rotors from the friction generated.

>>> Disc brakes now safe? Pro posts video to try and make you think again

So with more and more disc-brake bikes heading for the Alps and other big hill destinations offering long, fast descents, should riders be worried about disc brakes’ safety under extreme braking?

“Dragging the brakes for a long period of time will in the worst case scenario lead to brake failure, or severe loss of braking efficiency” says Guillaume Léon, design engineer at Hope Technology.

“The pads would either fade — if using organic pads — or the considerable temperature rise would make the brake fluid boil — some fluids are better than others under certain conditions —and also probably damage the piston seals.”

“Normally the disc brake system is designed with heat management in mind as it is the purpose of a brake to dissipate the kinetic energy by turning it into heat.”

The science

Léon stresses the importance of rotor diameter. On downhill mountain bikes these can reach 205mm. Hope’s view is that anything below 140mm is just too small to allow effective braking and rotor cooling.

Manufacturers build heat sinks and safeguards into their products to deal with heat build-up.

TRP tests its Hy/Rd cable actuated hydraulic brakes to the point where rotors get red hot. With a substantial metal body, the calipers act as an effective heat sink.

The company has also developed an insulating brake piston that helps to protect the brake fluid from heat transfer, a solution also used by SRAM in its brake calipers.

Single-piece rotors are also liable to warp as they expand with heat build-up, leading to that teeth-jarring squeal. To deal with this, higher quality rotors have a floating design where the braking surface is indirectly connected to the rotor arms, which allows expansion without deformation.

Shimano has gone one step further with its Icetech rotors, which incorporate cooling fins into the rotor and sandwich an aluminium core between the stainless steel braking surfaces to improve heat transfer. It also builds cooling fins into the brake pads on its higher-spec brakes and claims a 40-degree temperature decrease against a standard rotor in lab tests.

Other disc brake designs have cooling features built into the caliper body while Merida has a heat sink built into its frame to add extra cooling on its higher end Scultura Disc models.

The Union Cycliste Internationale analysed braking patterns in race situations last year, finding that the disc-brake systems on offer dissipated heat very quickly, resulting in negligible warming of the pads.

Watch: Eight things to know about disc brakes

Expert view

Michael Adomeit, Head engineer, Canyon Bikes

Heat dissipation is certainly an important issue in the development of disc brakes. It is actually the reason why we see technologies like Icetech or Freeza or ceramic pistons.

In the summertime we carried out some brake heat testing in the Black Forest, simulating an anxious, heavy rider.

With 120kg system weight and just using the front brake, we were going downhill for 8.6km on a nine per cent average slope.

Repeating this test several times we could not provoke any fading.

I am convinced that a rim brake would have troubles to pass this scenario, especially with carbon rims.

Regarding safety and braking performance, there is no doubt to me that disc brakes are superior to rim brakes in any situation.

Our take

Disc brakes have been around for long enough that manufacturers understand the problems that heat build-up can cause and how to deal with them. A well designed braking system and bike frame will have enough heat sinks and cooling built into them to mitigate this.

But the high speeds and intense braking that riders can exert on the road can still potentially lead to problems.

So anyone riding longer alpine descents this summer still needs to use their brakes judiciously, avoid dragging them for extended periods and give the system time to cool off between decelerations to make sure that they keep out of trouble — and that’s true for rim brakes too.

Disc brakes on drop-bar bikes are quite a new phenomenon. It was only in 2010 that the UCI sanctioned disc brakes on cyclo-cross bikes, with road bikes experimentally following along a few years later. Despite ongoing trials of their suitability in the peloton, now almost all manufacturers will offer a disc-brake road bike in their range.

The first crop of disc bikes used quick- release with 100mm axle length at the front and either 130mm or 135mm at the rear. Then along came thru-axles, borrowed from mountain bikes, where they have become pretty much the norm.

>>> Focus Izalco Max Disc review

Thru-axles increase the rigidity of the wheel-frame interface and allow more accurate wheel placement. This is particularly important for brake discs, where small pad clearances mean that a slight misalignment will cause rubbing. They also eliminate the risk of the wheel coming loose from the quick-release dropouts. The downside is slower wheel changes.

“Current thru- axles are slow to operate and require ‘three hands’ since the axle needs to be completely removed from the bike and the wheel,” says Maxime Brunard, Mavic’s road concept manager. But faster-release mechanisms like Mavic’s Speed Release and Focus’s RAT system are designed to mitigate this.

The first crop of road bikes with thru- axles used the 15mm diameter front axles common on mountain bikes but usually retained the rear quick-release.

Then in the last couple of years, rear thru-axles started to appear on road bikes; usually 12x135mm, although 12x142mm is now more common. At the same time Shimano started to promote its 12x100mm front sizing.

>>> Mavic Cosmic Pro Carbon SLC wheelset review

And Specialized promoted its own SCS rear thru-axle standard last year, which used a 135mm thru-axle but a different rear hub geometry that meant that there were few available wheelsets. Now it’s dropped this in favour of 12x142mm.

Mavic’s disc-brake wheelsets come with adaptors to fit its wheels into most frames, while other brands sell adaptors separately. It’s a headache to work out if a wheelset will fit your frame and there are increased costs in designing and manufacturing multi-standard hubs.

A standard, but for how long?

Thankfully the bike industry is settling on a standard, with most manufacturers following Shimano’s lead — 12x100mm front thru-axles are becoming the norm and most rear ends now use 12x142mm axles. This allows an 11-speed cassette and the brake rotor to fit without too asymmetric a rear wheel built on a narrow spoke placement.

Mavic is keen to see this spacing stick. “We firmly believe that the last thing that cyclists need is yet another standard. 12x100 and 12x142 makes great bikes and wheels. So we would love to stick with it,” says Brunard.

Watch: Eight things to know about disc brakes 

Kinesis UK is one brand replacing quick releases with 12x100mm front and 12x142mm rear thru-axles on its newest framesets, with Bruce Dalton, its marketing manager, citing the increased security of the wheel-frame connection as a key advantage.

The 142mm standard has its downsides though. The extra width can cause sub-optimal chainlines, particularly for bikes with shorter chainstays. Shimano and SRAM mandate a minimum 420mm chainstay length with disc brakes. Heel clearance is also a potential problem.

Expert view: Tom Marchment, Hunt Bike Wheels

“Clearly 12x100mm front and 12x142mm rear is quickly becoming the standard for road/gravel disc as it is definitely necessary for the industry to settle for some time to help riders know where they stand and not have to constantly check specs for compatibility. Plus, fewer variations will help reduce costs for riders.

>>> The best gravel and adventure road bikes 

“I wouldn’t be surprised to see the wider 148 Boost tried on the rear of road/gravel disc brake bikes at some point. After all, the 148 Boost standard was introduced by Trek and SRAM to increase spoke bracing angles and make racing 29er mtb rear wheels stiffer for hard cornering and sprinting/acceleration. It would come as no surprise if road pro sprinters wanted to see that benefit too.

>>> Hunt Bike Wheels releases three sub-1500g carbon clincher disc wheelsets

“Quick-releases will be around for quite a while still, especially for entry-level bikes where available components and the expense of proprietary fork and frame designs will limit thru-axle reach.

“Also, e-bikes could start to affect standards in the future, maybe moving chain lines to allow more powerful motors or even gear boxes, but we’re probably staring a bit too deeply into the crystal ball there!”

Our take

It looks as if the pace of change in disc-bike axle standards will slow now, with 12x100mm front and 12x142mm rear thru-axles dominating. But this does build in constraints at both extremes of the road bike market.

For performance machines, a 420mm chainstay may be too long, so expect to see work-arounds which displace the chainset to the right. At the other extreme, mixed terrain and gravel bikes are getting ever-wider tyres – 40mm or more.

Some come with 650b wheelsets with two-inch plus mtb tyres. On mountain bikes there’s a trend to even wider Boost axles to deal with their extra tyre width, so don’t discount wider axles appearing on drop-bar bikes too.

When LeMond introduced the Revolution turbo-trainer in 2010, its wheel off, direct-drive design looked almost gimmicky.

Fast forward to the present day and almost every indoor trainer brand has at least one direct-drive design in its range. So will we see all future trainers going in this direction?

Traditionally, turbo-trainers rely on friction generated between the rear tyre and a roller, allowing you to ‘ride’ indoors.

The roller is usually connected to a resistance unit and mounted within a frame designed to lift the rear wheel from the floor.

>>> Turbo training sessions: Get the most out of your indoor training

Direct-drive trainers, however, do away with the rear wheel entirely. Most enable a standard cassette to be fitted to the drive unit so the trainer is connected directly via the chain. And herein lays the benefits of the system.

Trainers utilise a heavy flywheel to generate momentum and thus create a more realistic simulation of riding on the road.

The direct-drive approach moves it from the outside of the wheel to a more central, hub-based position.

>>> Eight ways to make your turbo sessions more enjoyable

This creates a better real-world feel to the way the bike reacts to power input and when freewheeling. Tacx’s latest Neo Smart trainer can even simulate the experience of riding on pavé, something a traditional system would not be able to replicate.

CycleOps product manager, Justin Henkel explains why direct-drive is the ideal choice for the top-end Hammer trainer: “Traction between the tyre and roller is a limiting factor to the amount of rotating mass that can be used with a wheel on trainer. Higher rotating mass gives the trainer a more realistic feel."

Need a new turbo?

Pinpoint accuracy

As more cyclists than ever are now working with power meters and following training plans, accuracy of wattage measurement and resistance is crucial.

Direct-drive eliminates inaccuracies created through wheel slippage and roller tension inconsistencies.

Using the drivetrain allows assisted ‘smart’ trainers to measure and produce wattage very accurately; Elite claims to within +/- 1W for its Drivio; the most accurate wheel-driven trainers might be upwards of five watts out.

>>> Top 10 turbo training mistakes

With the increasing popularity of third party VR software such as Zwift, this power accuracy enables a more immersive experience than ever before.

Pertinent to the majority of users of indoor trainers is the potential obtrusiveness of the noise generated.

>>> Should you buy a smart turbo trainer?

While the original LeMond unit produced an ear-splitting 101dB (equivalent to a motorbike engine!), the latest direct-drive trainers can claim to be the quietest of all trainer types. Wahoo’s latest Kickr trainer measures quieter than a normal conversation at just 61dB.

Another bonus is the lack of tyre wear. No longer do you have to choose between fitting a spare wheel or damaging your expensive race tyres.

Is this it for wheel-driven trainers ?

For all the advantages of a direct-drive trainer, wheel-driven units still hold sway for some very good reasons.

From a practical aspect, wheel-driven trainers tend to be easier to transport and fold away when not needed.

>>> Zwift: Everything you need to know

Setting up for a quick spin is as easy as tightening the trainer to the rear skewer. The other critical factor is budget.

Direct-drive trainers are still expensive when compared to a wheel-based trainer, for reasons explained by Henkel: “The internal drive system on a direct-drive trainer is a much more complex design; more parts make it more expensive.”

Our take

Direct-drive trainers are worth considering for winter training. For riders looking to maximise their training and perhaps use VR and training software such as Trainer Road and Zwift, the benefits of a smart direct-drive trainer are apparent.

Wheel-driven trainers still have great appeal, though, and will continue to be popular. They are accessible to riders at every budget level, so look set to be around for a long time to come.

Make your sessions count

Expert view: Chip Hawkins, CEO of Wahoo

“A direct-drive trainer has many advantages over a wheel-on trainer. The one that people usually notice first is that a direct-drive trainer eliminates the issue of tyre wear. While that is a big plus for direct-drive trainers, the real advantage is a little less tangible.

"The biggest advantage is that it doesn’t incur the unnatural frictional drag created by pressing a roller against the tyre hard enough to not slip.

"The lower frictional drag, in combination with the high inertia flywheel, allows the wheel to continue spinning naturally through the dead spots in a pedal stroke as they do on the road.

“Wheel-on trainers have a lot of variables that you don’t have to take into account when using a direct-drive trainer.

"Tyre pressure, tyre wear, tyre type, roller tension, and numerous other factors can all affect how your wheel-on trainer performs. Changes to these variables can throw off power readings, accuracy, and adversely affect overall ride feel.”

Most of us have at some point been drawn to eBay to trawl the listings for a frame in our size and at a price that won’t see us cast out into the doghouse for a week.

Alongside the used bikes and official bike shop listings, there are a huge number of very cheap, unbranded carbon alternatives, often from China.

For the road cyclist looking for a unique bike and who is not concerned with brand names and logos, building up one of these frames with the finishing kit and groupset of choice is a very tempting prospect.

>>> Is it the end for the 34t chainring?

But if the price seems too good to be true, can we trust these frames? Have they gone through the same stringent testing procedures as named brands? And what comeback do you have if something goes awry while you’re riding it?

Online bike business VeloBuild offers carbon frames for sale online from as little as $339 (£226).

Chris Mei, director of VeloBuild’s office in Shenzhen, China, explains how these low prices are achieved: “The frames we sell are what we call ‘open common tool’ [a generic mould that anyone can purchase and use], so the price is much cheaper.

"Bigger brands usually have their own mould and tool, so their frame is special and only for them. They can pay for the mould cost and so their retail prices are higher.”

>>> Do we need 12-speed gears?

One of the primary concerns among UK cyclists when considering buying a frame online from China is the lack of warranty offered.

While you’re unlikely to find such assurances from an eBay seller, Mei is quick to point out that his company does guarantee the quality of its frames: “Our carbon frames have a two-year warranty which covers everything except ‘human destruction’.”

One UK bike importer we spoke to, who wished to remain nameless, raised serious concerns about the number of frame failures they had witnessed in Chinese carbon products.

Mei, however, assures us that his frames — made from high-tensile Toray 700 and aerospace grade 800 and 1000 carbon-fibre — meet the relevant EN European standards for sales in the UK.

>>> Are electronic groupsets necessary?

Neil Ball of UK carbon repair specialist Carbon Bike Technics has a theory as to why reported instances of frame failures are uncommon.

“We don’t see many unbranded frames through the workshop,” he says, “but this might be because of the cost implications.

“It would cost about the same amount of money to get one of these frames repaired professionally as it would to simply buy another new frame from China on the internet.”

>>> Can you trust repaired carbon bike frames?

Maybe we’re wrong to be wary of these frames, especially as they’re often made in the same factories that manufacture brand-name bikes.

Mei confirms: “Our factory in Shenzhen also makes frames for some well-known brands. I can’t say which brands — that’s confidential.”

If you're buying a frame, you'll need to know which groupset to put on it

The dark side

Big-name brands are quick to challenge the reliability of cheaper Chinese imports, especially in light of a number of high-profile scares over the influx of counterfeit frames coming to Europe.

Audrey Sogny, Look Cycle’s media officer, says: “The safety of the [counterfeit] frame is clearly compromised. Imagine what would happen if you were descending and the frame broke.”

>>> The disc brakes debate: are they necessary on road bikes?

Which leads us back to the ‘too cheap to be true’ maxim. Sogny won’t be drawn on how to spot a fake, explaining: “We don’t want to tell people how to know when they have a counterfeit frame because that gives clues to the counterfeiters on how to make them.

"If a customer has any doubt about whether their frame is genuine, they should contact our aftersales service.”

>>> Winter bikes: do you really need one?

On the broader subject, Sogny continues: “A lot of big firms in the Far East, like Giant in Taiwan, for instance, have the correct quality controls. But if you buy a cheap frame — not necessarily a counterfeit — you should be aware of the possible consequences.”

Our take

It seems there might be a middle ground here: buying through a specialist firm rather than eBay.

For us, though, there’s no substitute for visiting a dealer, sitting on a bike and getting the right one for you in terms of quality and safety, not just the cheapest.

Even UK online retailers are good at dealing with issues arising from bike sales, and are also in the same time zone.

For: Chris Mei - VeloBuild

“We have customers from the UK, and all our carbon frames are made to the same procedure as well-known brand name frames, and in the same factory.

"They come with a warranty and conform to the relevant EN standard for safety. As well as testing, we build bikes for our test riders to review on our website, and customers can share experiences on our forum.”

Against: Audrey Sogny - Look Cycle media officer

“I think you should be aware when you buy a frame that it has traceability; this is the case for all products, not just bikes. This is the customer’s responsibility when they purchase a frame.

"The main reason you should avoid cheap carbon frames is the safety implications. If you’re riding and something goes wrong, your life could be endangered.”

The first version of this article originally appeared in the May 21, 2015 print issue of Cycling Weekly