The rare ti Chris King headset is back in a modern update for the latest contemporary integrated headset bikes, in King’s first-ever Titanium DropSet. King Ti headsets only pop up every few years, and in very limited quantities. So, while even their regular rainbow of anodized aluminum headset cups are “built to last a lifetime, fully serviceable, and backed by [their] lifetime built-to-last warranty“, these titanium versions take it to the next level.

If you want to really make your bike happy, get it a King Titanium DropSet!

Chris King Titanium DropSet forever headset for modern bikes

It’s probably been more than 15 years since we really started to see integrated headsets take off in a big way, driven first by more carbon frames and then by tapered steerer tubes. But it’s only been 6 years since Chris King got into the integrated headset game with their original DropSet, solving the variable bearing preload problem with their patented GripLock wedge system.

The key to GripLock is its independent preload of the headset’s loosely dropped-in bearings separately of how it clamps against your steerer tube, so that the bearings stay preloaded as you ride, making it “impervious to the ill effects of load spikes from large hits and heavy braking”. The result is an integrated headset that in the process created some of the longest-lasting integrated headsets that have ever been made.

“Most of the new, carbon road and gravel bikes have internal bearing designs. When bearings aren’t pressed securely into a cup they shift and move and lose preload, which makes them move, creak, and eventually fail. The DropSet solves that problem.”

– Jay Sycip, Chris King Design Manager

And now, Chris King are finally offering these integrated DropSet headsets in rare and sought-after titanium!

Chris King Titanium DropSet headsets – Pricing, options & availability

The new Chris King Titanium DropSet comes in 4 models – DropSet 2, 3, 4 & 6 to fit most modern road, gravel & mountain bikes with a tapered steerer tube and integrated headset. (Not fully integrated internal cable routing, which would need the different AeroSet.) Each sells for the same $300 in matte ti with a ti heasdet cap & bolt, a 40% premium over the standard colorful alloy versions.

They don’t elaborate on how many of each headset they will make in titanium, but my past experience is that they will most certainly sell out. And likely it won’t take too long until they are gone. Then you may have to wait 5 or even 10 years until they pop up again.

These are headsets that will outlast your bike. And these are headsets that you’ll maybe even take from bike to bike over the years. Snap one up now to add some bling to your current bike, and possibly even to your next bikes down the road or trail.

Review: A lifetime King Ti NoThreadSet titanium headset

The King Ti headset I’m actually reviewing here is around 20 years old, and has been pressed into several bikes over those decades. And yes, it intentionally has the symmetrical cups pressed in upside down. Blame that on old bike shop rat traditions.

Now it’s on an old-school Soma Double Cross S&S-coupled canti all-rounder that I’ve been riding since around 2002, and has done everything from racing cyclocross to classic all-road riding & touring to what we now call gravel.

It’s had this headset in it since it got repainted in 2015. And the bike’s been ridden in about 6 or 7 European countries since then. Here it was on top of the Madonna del Ghisallo for its road-style cycling pilgrimage – testing pre-production versions of Vittoria’s first-ever Graphene-infused Corsa tubular tires. But it’s back as more of an off-road gravel touring bike these days.

The headset was in two different mountain bikes before this. First in a full-sus Kona trail bike I think, then a ti XC softail.

And it still spins as smoothly as when it was new, having realistically had only 2 or maybe 3 full tear-down services in its lifetime, so far. Bearings opened up, cleaned, regreased, and reassembled. Even the one time that it looked like I had waited too long, a good soak in degreaser and it was shiny like new a couple days later.

But there’s plenty of lifetimes left in both these titanium cups and the precision stainless steel Chris King bearings inside.

The beauty of the 1 1/18″ threadless standard was that there have been tons of bikes coming in and out of my workshop in those past 20 years that could fit this headset. Even though tapered steerers have taken over for the most part, there will always be frames to fit this headset.

Now that integrated headsets are a bit closer to being standardized, a ti DropSet means being more likely to fit your next bike too! Looking around the house, both my wife and I have a gravel bike and a mountain bike that could fit a Titanium DropSet. The hardest decision would be picking which bike deserved it first!

ChrisKing.com

The post Chris King Titanium DropSet Returns Sought-After Ti Headset for Modern Bikes: Review appeared first on Bikerumor.

When I first heard of composite flat pedals, I was skeptical that they would be tough enough for MTB. After riding several sets, including the updated Race Face Chester pedals, I’m convinced you’d have to do something severe to catastrophically damage a composite pedal body. They are tough enough, and they’re lightweight and inexpensive!

For complete details on the updated Chester pedals, check out Bikerumor’s launch article from last summer. In short, the Chesters are Nylon composite pedals that come in small or large size options. Their updated design aims to provide better traction than the older model, and a flatter feel without a hump over the axle. I’ve been riding the Chesters for several weeks now, and I’m pretty pleased with their platform shape, grip, and durability.

Race Face Chester Pedals – Key Specs:

The new Chester pedal bodies are made from a durable Nylon composite. The body shape was redesigned for “a sleeker look and improved feel” over the outgoing version, and I’d agree they look more streamlined.

Based on my preference for larger-bodied pedals I opted to test the large Chesters. They measure 115mm long, 110mm wide and 16mm thick. Race Face really wanted to eliminate the hump over the axle the older Chester pedals had. While a minor hump is still visible on each end of the axle, it’s been flattened right down in the middle.  

These pedals feature 11 pins per side – Nine replaceable metal pins and two molded pins. Race Face says they improved the pin placement over the last Chester pedal, to offer better grip and easy foot repositioning. The new pedal’s pins are definitely spread out over a larger area than the old version.

Rotating on a chromoly spindle, the Chester’s internals are serviceable and rebuildable. Race Face also eliminated the wrench flats from the older model’s spindles to give the new Chesters a reduced Q-Factor.

The large Chester pedals are pretty lightweight at 358g, especially given their generous platform. Race Face claims 355g, which is close enough for me to call honest!

Ride Impressions – Shape and Feel:

I’ve been riding the Chesters for several weeks now, first on the Devinci Troy I recently reviewed and later on my own Knolly Chilcotin.

I wear size 9.5 shoes, and I find the large Chester pedals’ width is easily adequate. The only thing I prefer about more square shaped pedals is they offer more side-to-side support when your foot bounces out of position. With the Chesters, you’re perfectly well supported when your foot is planted correctly, but their tapered shape offers less room for error if your foot shifts outwards.

However, the Chester’s shape provides a ton of platform front-to-back. This pedal feels very supportive and comfortable under hard pedalling, and they’re definitely not going to give you the ‘crow’s foot’ feeling. At 16mm they’re not the slimmest pedal out there, but only by a few millimeters. The Chesters keep your feet pretty close to the spindles and don’t feel blocky or thick.  

At Crankworx, Race Face’s sales rep told me one priority with the Chester’s updated design was to minimize the old version’s hump over the axle. A look at the pedal shows there is now only a slight bulge at either end of the axle, and the middle is dead flat. I’d say their slimming accomplished the goal; I don’t find the slight humps noticeable at all.

The metal pins on the Chesters are longer than the molded pins, and they sit higher than the pedal body’s middle section. This allows your feet to sink in and gives the Chesters a slightly concave feel.

Traction:

I rode two different pairs of shoes with the Chesters; Crankbrothers Stamp Trails and Endura MT500s. I started out riding the Stamp Trail shoes and found I had good grip, but nothing I’d call super grabby. It wasn’t hard to adjust my foot position, and my foot did get bounced off the pedal once or twice on rough trails.

The Chesters seem to grip the Endura MT500 shoes more forcefully. These shoes immediately felt more solidly stuck to the pedals than the Crankbrothers, and it takes a bit more effort to re-position them. The MT500’s triangular middle lugs (vs the rectangular Stamp Trail tread pattern) definitely stick better on the Chester’s pins. I preferred the grippier feel of these shoes, especially on rough trails where my feet stayed locked in position better.

Durability:

Due to my Knolly’s low bottom bracket, the Chesters have suffered their fair share of pedal strikes! Despite this, the worst damage I have inflicted was flattening one of the molded pins on one pedal. Otherwise, both have nothing more to show than small scratches on the outside edges. Two of the metal pins appear to have taken hits, but all of them are still straight and fully intact. Should you mangle or break one, the Chesters’ bottom-loading pins should remain easy to remove.

I haven’t been beating on the Chesters for too long but they have been put through wet and muddy fall conditions. So far I’ve had no mechanical issues with the internals, and the spindles are still straight.

Race Face’s updated Chester pedals retail for $55, and are available in eight different colors.

raceface.com

The post New Race Face Chester Pedals Spread Out the Pins and Dump the Hump appeared first on Bikerumor.

The Schwalbe G-One race gravel tire family finally adds a rocky, loose & wet conditions tire with the all-new RX. Certainly much more aggressive than the tightly packed low-profile arrows and the semi-slick tread you’ll already find in their gravel race tire line-up, the new Schwalbe G-One RX manages a well-balanced combo of smooth rolling performance backed up with plenty of grip for fast riding or racing in soft and loose conditions, or even wet weather and mud.

Schwalbe G-One RX Pro aggressive gravel bike race tire

Schwalbe calls their new G-One RX, their ideal gravel race tire for “maximum off-road performance”. What that means is a versatile tire designed to offer grip on everything from rocky trails to slick muddy tracks. But at the same time, Schwalbe creates a new gravel tire with high-speed racing in mind. They designed this tire to go fast.

If you have dry, hardpack, and even tarmac racing… the almost slick G-One RS is gonna be your fastest option. Then, if your racing is on dry tracks and roads, but with bits of soft dirt, sand, or deep gravel mixed in, the all-rounder G-One R is probably still your best bet.

But if that smooth gravel is likely to deteriorate more into MTB single track, or there’s going to be more proper rocks & roots to tackle, or that perfect dirt devolves into slick mud… you’ll be hard-pressed to find a quicker, grippier gravel race tire than this new Schwalbe G-One RX.

What’s new?

The all-new RX has hints of the tightly-packed arrows & boomerangs of the original G-One R. But in fact, its tread design is completely new, taking inspiration both from past Schwalbe gravel and cyclocross treads.

The center blocks are close enough to roll quickly on hard surfaces, while still spaced enough to dig into soft terrain. Then, teardrop transition knobs radiate out for support as you lean the bike over. Finally, alternating shoulder rows of tall tapered teardrops, separated by tall longitudinal blocks deliver big support and Ideal center tread pitch for easy rolling Boomerang center blocks for excellent traction and braking as proven by the G-ONE R Tear shaped intermediate tread knobs with long contact patch for strong support under load Curved outer blocks for improved traction as proven by the X-ONE R Longitudinal outer blocks for lateral stabilization and off-camber grip Wide gap designed for self cleaning stability when cornering in loose terrain. Then, ample free space in the transition zone helps clear debris away from those central triangles for consistent grip even in soft mud.

And yet, this new aggressive gravel race tread is still faster than both the G-One Bite or Overbite.

While the rubber keeps the same Addix Race name, Schwalbe says it is a new rubber formula – now using more sustainable recycled carbon black and fair trade natural rubber. And it is their fastest Addix compound rubber yet, decreasing rolling resistance by 10% while keeping the same durability

Newly tweaked Pro casing construction

Schwalbe also sneaks some tweaks inside the Pro tire’s construction, compared to the previous Super Race construction for improved performance. The 3-layered sidewall casing reinforcement, 2-layer casing under the tread, V-Guard anti-puncture belt under the tread, and dual-compound Addix Race rubber construction don’t really change that much. But now, both that extra 3rd sidewall layer and the 5mm wider V-Guard breaker extend a bit until they overlap.

The result, curiously, is both increased puncture protection AND lower rolling resistance. But with no extra weight penalty. Those changes combined with improved rolling performance seems counterintuitive. But when pressed on how that could work, Schwalbe alluded that maybe the materials themselves weren’t exactly the same from one generation to the next. But they did elaborate that tire construction-to-performance characteristic relationships aren’t always as straightforward and logical as one might hope. And it’s not that uncommon to see what should be a stiffer tire actually exhibit decreased rolling resistance in the end.

Only available in Schwalbe’s new Pro line with blue graphics like their professional team riders, the new G-One RX is their gravel tire offering the “best possible off-road performance with more grip in difficult conditions“.

“Off-road, especially on rocky and muddy terrain, enormous amounts of grip are required – this is where the G-ONE RX feels most at home.”

Schwalbe G-One RX – Pricing, availability & options

One of the greatest things about the new Schwalbe G-One RX is that there are tons of options, ready to suit almost any gravel rider or racer. It is the top-tier of Schwalbe gravel tires performance-wise, so it won’t come exceptionally cheap. But my general thinking is always that a good set of high-end tires is probably the best value upgrade you can get when you figure the ride improvement-to-cost ratio.

All sizes & colors of the new G-One RX Pro retail for the same $83 / 75€ price. All you have to do is pick the perfect match for your bike.

The new tubeless-ready Schwalbe G-One RX Pro comes in tan wall (dubbed transparent) or all-black sidewall versions, and three 700c sizes: 40, 45 & 50mm. If you need smaller sizes, say to squeeze into an old CX bike, the R & RS also come in 35mm variants.

Schwalbe.com

The post All-New Schwalbe G-One RX Gravel Bike Tires Mix Racing Speed & Tough Conditions Grip appeared first on Bikerumor.

Adaptable. Reliable. Capable. You could apply those words to the best gear for a number of different purposes, but in this case, that is the basis of Le Col’s new ARC Collection. As their first-ever gravel collection, Le Col states that ARC is a bold new direction for the brand. Instead of high-end road kit, ARC is still high-end, but more focused on exploring unknown roads, gravel, and dirt tracks.

Depending on your style, the ARC range has a little bit for everyone. The base fit starts with the ARC Cargo Bib Shorts, and then gives you the option of going baggy, or tight, or a combo of both.

The ARC Cargo Bib Shorts ($275) are packed with extra storage including two cargo pockets on the legs, and two rear pockets that tuck under the jersey. These allow a more secure pocket than most jersey pockets, or allow you to run a baggy shirt without any pockets over top. A premium chamois is included with a bamboo blend microfiber top sheet for durable comfort.

The ARC Overshort ($145) gives riders a more casual look, but still offers a trim fit with 4-way stretch material for easy pedaling. It has two cargo shorts on the legs with zippered closures, and an adjustable waist band to dial in the fit.

Depending on the weather, there are options for sleeveless ($85), short sleeve ($92), and long sleeve ($98) Merino base layers, all made from Italian Biella Merino yarn.

On top, you have the choice of a Merino jersey in short sleeve ($210) or long sleeve ($235), or a Merino T-Shirt also in short sleeve ($92) or long sleeve ($105) for the baggier fit.

For wet days, the collection includes the ARC Lightweight Rain Jacket ($365) with Pertex Shiel technology for a 190g total weight. The jacket is constructed with 2.5L ripstop fabric, YKK Aquaguard zippers, taped seams, and a draw cord at the hood and hem. Fully waterproof, the jacket has a large vent across the back and a hood.

Accessories round out the collection with Merino Arm ($66) and Leg Warmers ($91), a Merino Snood (neck gaiter, $40), and a packable ARC Cap ($46) with Pertex Shield technology.

With the exception of the accessories which are gender neutral, all of the pieces are available in men’s or women’s fits for the same prices. Everything is available now from lecol.cc.

First Impressions

There’s no question when you see the price tag that this is premium level kit. But even if you didn’t know the price, you would still think it’s premium by the feel. Everything from the grippers, to the strap material, to the chamois, feels luxurious. If you’re paying a lot for your kit, this is how you want it to feel.

I had a chance to check out the Cargo Bib Shorts and the Merino Long Sleeve Jersey ahead of time, and overall I wasn’t disappointed. Surprised really. The last Le Col kit I tried didn’t blow me away, but the ARC collection is on another level.

In terms of fit, previously, I was a solid medium in Le Col. I have lost some weight recently, but the ARC collection feels more relaxed in the fit making the medium a bit loose in spots for me. I’m often in between a small and a medium, and if I ordered again, I would keep the medium jersey but order a small pair of shorts. Otherwise, the cut is excellent with the Merino wool jersey fitting tight on or off the bike.

I’ve been riding the kit in ideal fall conditions from 40-70ºF, and with the right base layer (or none at all) the temperature regulation has been perfect. I love Merino wool and its ability to keep you warm without feeling too hot when the temperature rises, and that’s no different here.

The only temperature-related asterisk comes from the rear pockets of the bibs. Because it has two layers of the outer short material the pockets are likely very durable, but they’re also warmer than a bib with only one layer of fabric on the small of your back. It’s a small complaint, especially since the pockets are very well executed. The positioning makes them easily accessible, without feeling the contents when you’re pedaling – even with a bulky cell phone in a case inside.

It’s the same story with the cargo pockets on the legs. If you like the mesh outer layer found on other brands’ cargo bibs, you won’t find that here. The reason is that Le Col specifically wanted to make sure the pockets stayed in place with zero bounce or sag when loaded. Through their testing with multiple materials including mesh, they found that using the same fabric as the shorts resulted in a more durable and supportive pocket than a mesh outer. The result is a pocket system that can be loaded with the heaviest items without any sagging or bouncing over rough terrain.

This might be Le Col’s first-ever gravel line, but for me, it’s my favorite Le Col kit yet.

The post Le Col Dives Deep Into Gravel with New Premium ARC Clothing Range appeared first on Bikerumor.

I’ll admit that I was quite reluctant to put a set of these giant Culprit CCSR armrests onto the lightweight aero bar setup I bolt onto my gravel bike for ultra-distance-style endurance riding. They are more than 300g heavier than the minimalist Deda setup I was already using, and so much bulkier that it almost seems silly to compare them.

But I did it, and I rode the bike with the CCSR setup. And the improvement in comfort and control with the Culprit Carbon Composite Speed Rests installed is night-and-day. So much so, that it’s much easier to spend more time on the aerobars, and I feel much more justified in having them on the gravel bike in the first place.

Culprit CCSR Carbon Composite Speed Rests aerobar upgrade

I first wrote about Culprit’s original CSR carbon armrest upgrade four years ago, and they now sell for $210 a pair. The benefits sounded solid, but many (most?) cyclists had a hard time wrapping their brain around paying so much to bolt a heavier set of armrests (CSR claimed weight of ~314g with pads) onto an aerobar setup which they probably already were generally satisfied riding.

The Culprit long arm cup concept was simple:

• Extra-long aerobar armrests spread your weight over a larger area for improved comfort
• Higher curved arm cups give you more surface to push against laterally for improved control
• More bolt-on positions allow riders to position and angle armrests in their ideal ergonomic position
• All of which result in a rider being able to stay in their most aero tuck position longer for less wind resistance

So, Culprit went back to the drawing board to figure out how to make them more affordable – and at the same time even more versatile. They settled on injection-molded carbon-reinforced composite. And were able to get the same length, shape, strength, and adjustability at just a slight weight penalty – claimed around +20g.

In fact, the new Culprit CCSR armrests have even more position adjustability (32 vs. 24 bolt holes) and even taller supporting sides to the arm cups (max 52mm height vs. 36mm).

Tech details and actual weight

The newer Culprit CCSR armrests are each 210mm long overall and 116mm wide at the widest point. They are 64mm wide at the flat spot under your forearms through the middle of the arm cups, then taper to 36mm wide closer to your wrists. The inner side of the cup is 36mm & outer side 52mm tall overall, measured from the base. The base of the cups is 8.5mm thick where they mount to your aerobar brackets, but with 4mm recessed holes so everything sits flush.

In actuality though, the real widths feel a bit narrower, side heights a bit lower, and the radii of its curves wider once you attach the cushy 12mm thick arm pads.

There’s an almost mind-boggling 32 bolt holes – for most standard 2-bolt mounting – which gives huge adjustability. And with alternately horizontal or longitudinal oversized slots, you can easily tweak their final angle with pretty much any aerobar mounting.

Culprit claims a weight of 318g for the 2 arm cups without pads or bolts – essentially the same as the original carbon version with its pads. Mine weighed a real 324g, but you aren’t going to use them without pads.

Their actual weight was 404g for the pair with pads (no bolts). I didn’t include the 30g of bolts that Culprit sent, because I didn’t use any of them, and you’ll most likely use whatever stock bolts you had, just like me.

So how do they compare size-wise to something more conventional?

Starting off, I had a clip-on Deda Fastblack2 aerobar for my long-distance gravel bike setup, which are great actually.

They are simple, not crazy expensive for what they are, and are lightweight – weighing just 394 in total – for carbon extensions, bolt-on bar clamps, alloy arm cups & pads.

Its curved alloy cups are 91cm wide, just 95cm long, and max out at 32mm high. Then, they are topped with 7mm thick shaped pads, and weigh 87g for the pair of cups & pads. They also have 16 bolt holes and no rotational adjustment.

Needless to say, they are a fraction of the size (<1/2) and weight (<1/4) of the Culprit CCSR setup. And I was fine riding them.

At least until I realized that I could be more comfortable…

Why I have aero bars on a gravel bike in the first place

I know aerobars on gravel bikes look weird, bordering on ludicrous. And there is certainly valid debate that they may not be a safe idea for gravel racing, especially not in mass-start events. But the reason that I have aerobars is simply to give me more, and more comfortable hand positions for extra-long distance riding (and potentially racing) over a mix of smooth & rough terrain.

I enjoy riding a gravel bike – even loaded down with bags – across some gnarly terrain. But my hands and wrists can really suffer, to the point after multiple days that I might have to stop for extended periods of time just to give my hands a break. I haven’t personally experienced it, but I’ve had more than one close friend come back from an ultra-distance off-road race with nerve damage, tingling hands, and a lack of feeling in their fingers for weeks on end.

So, I’m happy to ride around with these silly things strapped to my bar in hopes of avoiding that. And in reality, they’re only on the bike a couple of months of the year, and are easily removed for regular gravel riding.

My setup

Now, back to their setup. The huge positioning adjustability allowed me to install the new Culprit CCSR armrests a bit wider than my original cups, while also slightly angling them inward so I could keep the aerobar extensions narrow like I like. They’re also a bit further back, so I don’t have to lean quite so far forward (hence the extensions slid back too, which I’ve yet to trim down.)

Together, that puts my elbows a bit wider, so I have a much better steering control while leaned forward over the bar.

And even though these extended cups are huge, I still have ~3cm between their underside and the top of my bar tape, so there’s still plenty of room for my hands on the tops.

Review: Riding on the Culprit CCSR armrest setup is just better!

In the end, the carbon composite Culprit CCSR armrests literally do everything they promised they would. The long, wide & soft pads are so comfortable that I’m able to ride an almost infinite amount of time leaning forward – at least within my scope of mixed-surface riding. They aren’t there to ride off-road really, so it’s pretty much just a spot to lay down and rest my hands on sections of tarmac and smoother gravel roads.

With my elbows wider and supported by the high cups, I have no problem steering the bike through corners, as long as I can see far enough through the exit of the turn to know I won’t need to brake. But even when I do need to come out of them at high speed to slow down, the upturn of the cups makes for a comfortable and controlled move from the aerobars back to the brake hoods. There’s no sense of wobbling like I remember from occasionally riding tri bikes. Although, some of that also comes from extra handling stability of a gravel bike in the first place.

Ultimately, I spend more time on the aerobars with the Culprit CCSR setup than I did before. And that means more time in a more aerodynamic position, savings precious watts.

So I call that a win!

Plus, it helps me feel better about putting aerobars on the gravel bike in the first place.

Use beyond gravel

Gravel is surely an edge case for aero bars to start with. But I expect that these same benefits will apply just as much (or more!) to time trial and triathlon riders who want to spend a greater percentage of time on the aero bars. We all know aero gains mean more watts saved at higher speeds. And cyclists actually racing against the clock are going to care more about those seconds saved, when it could make a difference whether they win or not.

Simply being able to stay longer in your most aero tuck thanks to the extra comfort & control with the Culprit CCSR Carbon Composite Speed Rests is hard to argue with.

The downsides

While it sounds like a pretty glowing review, there are still a few cons to the CCSRs, too. The Culprit Carbon Composite Speed Rests are certainly heavy relative to conventional setups. I actually chose my original Deda setup because of its lightweight and hand position adjustability. And switching the cups out to CCSR cups added 317g. That’s an 80% weight increase, not to mention the increased cost.

Let’s be honest though, that weight gain is less than half a water bottle or a couple of spare light butyl inner tubes. It’s really not much.

The basic thick foam pads also aren’t as sophisticated as most aerobar setups. They are comfortable. But there are just 12 tiny 2mm perforated holes more for swat drainage than ventilation, with no airflow channels, and my forearms did get hot and sweaty staying in the same position on long, warm rides. Plus, the fabric face of the pads is soft, and can get caught on sharp edges like a watch. One of my pads has a small scrape, but it hasn’t frayed at all and still looks pretty good.

And lastly, the pads are held securely in place with velcro stuck onto the composite cups. And it holds so securely that when I wanted to remove and reposition the pads, I had to be very careful not to just pull the velcro away from the cup. Careful rolling/peeling the foam pads away mostly worked. And when it didn’t, I was able to just stick the velcro back to the cups and it still holds securely.

Culprit CCSR – Pricing, options & availability

A set of composite CCSR long armrests sells for $128-138 in Culprit’s webshop, plus shipping & import costs since they are sent directly from Taiwan where the company is based. For a very limited time now, they also are still offering a Black Friday special where you could get two sets of Culprit CCSR armrests for $200, presumably so you could share those delivery costs with a friend who also would benefit from an upgrade to their aerobars.

The Culprit CCSR armrests are not UCI legal (because they are too long), but Culprit does offer a chopped-down version that’s still wide and comfy but just 128mm long, for a lower $108.

Their lighter more expensive carbon CSRs are also currently on sale in a package with Culprit’s own extensions if you feel the need for padding all the way to your hands.

Get ’em all now, directly from Culprit.

CulpritBicycles.com

The post Culprit CCSR Armrests Boost Aerobar Comfort & Control, From Triathlon to Gravel: Review appeared first on Bikerumor.

Rad Power Bikes established themselves early as one of the leading players in affordable, consumer-direct ebikes. That momentum was likely blunted by high-profile recalls and lawsuits, however it seems like with the recent announcement of the Rad Power Safe Shield battery technology, Rad is once again gaining momentum. 

I was specifically interested in the updated RadWagon 5 after spending some time on the RadWagon 4. The RadWagon 4 was a decent attempt, but as it turns out, the 5 is better in almost every way. 

RadWagon 4 Got Off to a Shaky Start

My biggest concern about the preceding RadWagon 4 was the speed wobble the bike would develop if you loosened your grip on the handlebars. It was mostly placated by installing a Cane Creek Viscoset headset, but that wasn’t something the consumer should have to do after purchase to fix a major handling issue. These bikes are all one-size-fits-most, so it’s possible my experience was a result of my unique positioning on the bike. Regardless, it wasn’t good. 

So, after receiving the RadWagon 5, I couldn’t wait to build it up and immediately take it for a test ride. I was very relieved to find a bike with perfectly composed handling. No more steering wobble – even with your hands completely off the bars. 

There are many changes to the bike that could account for this improvement. The frame is completely new, there is no more multi-way adjustable stem, and the battery placement has changed. Perhaps most importantly, the tires and wheels have completely changed. 

No More 22s!

Why would tires and wheels make that big of a difference? The RadWagon 4 ran proprietary 22 x 3” tires and wheels with odd hub spacing (the QR fork dropouts measure 134mm), whereas the RadWagon 5 moves to non-proprietary 20 x 3.3” tires (made by Kenda) and more standard hub sizing for the new 45mm travel RST Guide suspension fork with a thru-axle. I had wondered if the original 22” tires were causing some, or all, of the speed wobble, but it was impossible to swap them out for anything short of a moped tire. That also meant getting replacement tubes or tires anywhere other than from Rad Power wasn’t an option – a big headache for any consumer who doesn’t have a spare.

Despite the smaller wheels, the RadWagon 5 has a much better ride quality than the 4, even with the suspension fork locked out. The 20” tires ride smoother at higher pressures than the 22” tires, giving the whole bike a more confident and comfortable ride. With the 3.3” tires, I can run about 15-20psi comfortably without the ride feeling vague in the corners when fully loaded, and without feeling every bump through my spine. 

Improved Frame Design

While both frames have the same 120lb carrying capacity for the integrated rear rack, the RadWagon 5 has a 375lb payload capacity (350lb on the RadWagon4 ), and feels much more stable when fully loaded. The weight of the battery is now behind the seat tube and lower in the frame which likely helps, and the frame has massive reinforcement around the bottom bracket junction to stiffen up the low-step frame design. 

Stepping over the frame on the 4 could be a challenge if you had a water bottle mounted to the top tube. Now, even with a bottle, it’s much easier to mount and dismount the bike. 

Rad Power states that the RadWagon 5 should fit riders from 4’11”-6’3″ (150-190 cm). I’m 5’8″, and found that I had to push the saddle all the way back on the rails to feel like I wasn’t super cramped from the short reach. But there is still more seat post to extend for taller riders.

Keep Your Accessories

When it comes to accessories, I love that all of the accessory mounts on the 5 are the same as the 4. That means if you already own accessories like a front rack, basket, caboose, running boards, etc., they’ll all fit on your new bike. 

Like the 4, I’ve spent the most time using the 5 to chauffeur my daughter around town. The RadWagon has two integrated mounts for child seats like the Yepp Maxi, and you can mount them inside of the RadWagon Caboose rails for a bit of added protection around the child seat. Once they graduate from the Yepp, you can add running boards and a seat cushion and keep the Caboose to still zip around with your kids (or friends, assuming the total weight is under 375lbs). 

There are plenty of cargo-carrying options to make trips to the grocery, post office, etc. easier than ever. I went with a front rack that I strapped a milk crate to, but Rad Power offers their own front baskets that you can bolt right on. 

Really, the only catch to the RadWagon rack system is that the oversized tubes make it so you can’t run most pannier bags that aren’t sold by Rad Power. 

Simpler, More Upright Cockpit

Another big change to the RadWagon design is the cockpit setup. Instead of an adjustable stem with a more standard bar, the Rad Wagon 5 uses a fixed stem and a high-rise BMX-style handlebar. This puts the rider in a much more upright position, which should be welcomed by most riders. 

WARNING: SO MANY WARNING LABELS

Remember those lawsuits mentioned earlier? It seems like they have had a profound impact on the amount of warning labels and stickers that are included on this bike. They are everywhere. There are even warning stickers that are under the clear coat directly in front of you on the top tube of the bike – no way to miss these (or remove them). 

Electronics

You don’t really expect an ebike under $2,500 to have advanced electronics, but the RadWagon 5 is impressive for the price. One of the biggest improvements would have to be the Safe Shield Battery tech which is UL certified to UL-2271. Essentially, it’s supposed to prevent thermal runaway in the case of a fire. That’s when a chain reaction within the battery raises the internal temperature and can eventually lead to the battery failing and catching fire. It’s this chain reaction that can make battery fires so hard to put out. The Safe Shield tech encapsulates each battery cell with a “heat absorbing resin” that claims to prevent this. 

Fortunately, I have not needed to test this feature. But it does give me more confidence in the system as a whole. 

The RadWagon 5 includes a 720Wh Safe Shield external battery that uses Samsung 50GB or LG M50LT cells. The power is directed through a 750W rear hub motor that offers an impressive 90Nm of torque. The included 48VDC, 2 Amp smart charger can operate on 100-240V AC power. A full charge claims to take somewhere between 3-7 hours, and I’ve never had it take more than six.

A full charge also claims to deliver 20-60 miles of range, which seems accurate. My ranges have skewed toward the 20-mile side as I’m almost always carrying a passenger and accessories, and tend to ride at higher levels of assist in Class 3 mode. To get the higher end of that range figure, you’d need to ride unloaded and at lower assistance levels.

Pick Your Class

One of the more interesting electronic features is the new ability to switch between different ebike classes. While the bike ships as a Class 2 (20mph max speed w/ throttle), you can switch the bike to a Class 1 (20mph, no throttle) or a Class 3 (28mph, no throttle). Technically, there’s nothing preventing you from running the throttle if you switch it to a Class 3, but if you want it to be compliant with local laws, you can remove the throttle. 

You’ll probably want to keep that throttle though – I use it all the time when maneuvering the bike out of the house, and up to the street. It essentially functions as an easier walk-assist mode, where you can juice the throttle a bit while walking the bike to help you get the heft up hills, curbs, etc. The throttle is also very helpful in certain situations where you’re trying to take off with a fully loaded cargo bike in a tricky area. You can use the throttle to get moving, and then switch to pedaling when you’re balanced on the open road. 

Color Display, Torque Sensor, Charging Port and more

The class change can be accessed relatively easily through the custom color display, which is another nice touch for the electronics – there’s even a USB-C port on the display to charge additional electronics. A new torque sensor gives the RadWagon 5 much better assistance delivery than the 4 as well. Previously it was more of an on/off switch with a cadence sensor, where the new bike gradually delivers the power as you push, making the pedaling feel more natural. 

There are five levels of pedal assistance, as well as a zero-assist option if you want to suffer by pedaling an 86lb cargo bike without the motor assisting you. All of these are easily toggled with the switch mounted to the left side of the bar, which is also where you’ll find the turn signal controls. 

Yes, the RadWagon 5 has turn signals – but only on the rear, which seems like a miss. Because of that, there’s another warning label stating that they’re not replacements for proper hand signals. They’re also not auto-cancelling, so you need to remember to press the button a second time after you’ve made the turn.  

Fortunately, the front and rear lights come on automatically, with the front providing “~200 lumens.” Personally, if I was riding the RadWagon 5 at night, I’d want to add some brighter lights, but these are better than nothing. 

Can you Build it Yourself?

Yes, it is possible to build this bike yourself. Particularly if you have some experience wrenching on bikes. Rad Power includes a surprisingly comprehensive manual and a decent tool kit to complete the basic assembly.

But if you’re going to buy one of these bikes, or any bike online for that matter, and you don’t have much experience, take it to a shop and pay them to build it and properly tune it. You’ll want to make sure that particular shop will even work on consumer-direct ebikes before you drag it in, though.

Bumps in the Ride

Overall, the experience with the RadWagon 5 has been great, but there have been a few hiccups along the way. After less than 100 miles, I started hearing an odd noise as I was riding. After a few laps around a parking lot, I traced the noise to the rear spokes which had loosened quite a bit. After removing the wheel (pro tip: disconnect all the wires first), and then tensioning and truing it (you’ll need a larger 3.96mm spoke wrench for the oversized nipples), it’s been solid since.

I’ve been a bike mechanic for over 20 years now, and know my way around a noise. That’s important because it highlights an issue that faces any customer who buys a consumer-direct ebike, not just a Rad Power. If you’re not a seasoned bike mechanic, you will likely run into issues that the manual won’t address. While the build on the RadWagon 5 was better than the 4, and the bike came with a better-than-average user’s manual, these bikes still need a good amount of adjustment out of the box, and even more, once they break in. 

Then there’s the rear brake. Even after breaking in the brakes properly, the rear brake has developed a squeal whenever it’s used. It’s really more of a resonance through the frame than a squeal related to the pads. I’ve tried cleaning the rotor and pads, resetting pistons, readjusting the brake caliper, checking rotor bolts, etc. – just about everything short of replacing the brake pads or rotor completely. I’m sure if you ran into the same issue, Rad Power would do what’s necessary to quiet the brake. In spite of the noise, the Tektro hydraulic disc brakes offer plenty of stopping power and are very easy to control. The move to hydraulic brakes is a big plus over the mechanical brakes of the RadWagon 4, since the heavy bike chews through pads quickly and requires frequent pad adjustments for the mechanical discs. Hydraulic disc brakes self-adjust, so there’s no need for frequent pad adjustments – just keep an eye on the brake pad thickness.

The last issue comes in the form of an odd occasional clunk as the drivetrain seems to engage the hub motor. As far as I can tell, there’s no rhyme or reason for it, sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s more of an annoyance than anything as it doesn’t really affect the ride, but you will feel it in the pedals. Again, this is something Rad Power would likely send out replacement parts for if I had pursued it as a consumer.

Other Things to Consider

If you’re thinking about adding a RadWagon to your fleet, there are a few things to consider. The biggest thing would be storage. At 86lbs without accessories, this bike is not light, and can’t be hung on most bike storage options. It also lacks the ability to be stored vertically on the rear rack like some other cargo bikes. As a result, you’ll need a storage space where you can easily wheel the bike in and out, and store it on the sturdy center stand.

The length, weight, frame design, and layout of the bike also will make it very difficult to transport on most, if not all bike racks. The bike has a 50.7″ wheelbase which leaves a few tray-style racks that will work, but you’ll probably need one with a ramp, and a rack that will work around the fenders and rack, and can accommodate an 86lb bike which will be tricky. In my experience, if you’re riding somewhere where friends or family are driving with their bikes, you’ll probably end up riding there to meet them.

Final Thoughts

Overall though, I’m willing to overlook those issues given what the RadWagon 5 delivers for the price (if I had purchased the bike, I would follow up with Rad Power about fixing said issues, obviously). I could not recommend the RadWagon 4 based on my experience, but the RadWagon 5 is a different story. It’s not perfect, but the 5 is so much better than the 4, it’s really not a fair comparison. If you’re cargo bike-curious, the RadWagon 5 could be a good place to start.

The post The Rad Power Bikes RadWagon 5 Cargo Bike is a Huge Improvement over the 4 appeared first on Bikerumor.

If you’re a Wahoo fan, you’ve undoubtedly seen the leaked photos and speculation of their unreleased “top secret” cycling computer. The computer in question is the all-new Wahoo ELEMNT ACE, and it is a firm step outside the box for Wahoo. The large head unit separates itself from the ELEMNT line with a touch screen (along with classic buttons), wind sensor, updated mapping, turn-by-turn voice directions, and much more. So, if a new cycling computer is on your gift list this season, keep reading because the Wahoo ELEMNT ACE has exceeded our expectations. 

What is the Wahoo ELEMNT ACE? 

The Wahoo ELEMNT ACE is the new flagship computer from Wahoo. It signals Wahoo’s entrance into the touchscreen (cell phone-size) head unit market — joining players like Garmin, Hammerhead, Polar, and Bryton. But unlike that format, the new ELEMNT ACE comes with more than one category first, including a wind sensor. 

The ELEMNT ACE is a new design in a familiar package. For those familiar with Wahoo, you’ll notice that the ELEMNT ACE “feels” like a Wahoo computer but is much larger. It comes with a durable aluminum mount and tether to make sure it doesn’t take flight over bumps or off road.

Bigger and Brighter Screen 

Wahoo keeps its classic three-button design but updates to a 3.8-inch transflective touch screen, the largest in class. The screen is anti-glare and helps with high-contrast visuals, and reading in direct sunlight with an unlimited color palette for more easy readability. Don’t worry if you’re not a touchscreen fan. The unit also has traditional buttons on the bottom and sides for operation. 

Long Battery Life 

With the updated screen comes an updated battery life, 30+ hours to be exact. The updated battery life comes with dual-band GPS and real-time data tracking. Since Wahoo envisioned the ELEMNT ACE as a traveling companion, more significant battery life was non-negotiable. 

Is That a Wind Sensor?

One of the main “is that?” questions with the ELEMNT ACE is the new wind sensor. This feature isn’t new to cycling, but it is usually a stand-alone device and has never graced a cycling head unit. The new Wahoo Wind Dynamics™ (WWD) measures real-time air resistance. So riders can see if they have a headwind or tailwind or are in “neutral air.” The WWD will provide post-ride insights into wind effects, drafting benefits, and aerodynamic efficiency. More on this later in my ride impressions.

Enhanced Navigation 

One of the more significant updates the ELEMNT ACE tackles is navigation, which Brings Turn-by-Turn voice directions for safety and convenience. The updated mapping dashboard is made better by the new touch screen and updated Wahoo user interface. Riders can use the touch screen alone or when exploring routes and the buttons en route. 

Digital Bike Bell

The feature we’ve all been waiting for is the Digital Bell. It seems trivial, but it’s effective, and when you don’t have a bell on your bike, sometimes you wish you had one. I use this feature on the Garmin 1050, and it’s a nice bonus when on the rails-to-trails and in the city. 

Wahoo ELEMNT ACE Specs

• Weight: 208g
• Dimensions: 126mm x 71mm x 24mm; 4.9mm x 2.75in x .78in
• Display Size: 96.7mm // 3.8in
• Resolution: 480 x 720
• Battery Type: Lithium-ion
• Water Rating: IPX7
• Charging: USB-C

Ride Impressions and Feature Breakdown 

I’ve had many rides on our demo unit Wahoo ELEMNT ACE computer, enough to give my thoughts. However, Wahoo also assures us that many updates are coming, so these impressions are limited to the current firmware version. We do see good things on the horizon, especially for the WWD features. 

Unboxing 

The Wahoo ELEMNT ACE is a big unit—it’s nearly cell phone size. Wahoo does make good use of all the space and doesn’t have much (if any) excess around the screen. It’s slightly thicker than other ELEMNT units, but I attribute that to the larger battery size. 

There is little excess inside the box. The unit arrives with an alloy computer mount and an elastic tie to secure it to the bars. The mount doesn’t arrive with shims or rubber grommets. When you mount it, it’s alloy to carbon—slightly scary if you value the carbon finish on your bars. 

Wahoo ELEMNT ACE Setup 

I wish there was more to elaborate on, but the setup is uneventful and easy. Like other Wahoo units, you scan the QR code, which pulls up the Wahoo app. If you have the app, then all your information is ready to transfer to the new unit. After dialing in a few initial setup questions, you’re good to pair your sensors.

Pairing sensors for the ELEMNT ACE is done from the unit, not the app. A home screen allows the user to add sensors by hitting the ‘+’ button. The ACE scans for the sensor and then reports back with the findings. So far, I’ve had zero trouble pairing power meters, trainers (TACX and Wahoo), shifting, and heart rate monitors. The only piece I’ve had a slight issue with is the Trek Carback Radar, but I imagine it will clear up after the initial wave of updates. 

First Ride

My first rides on the Wahoo ELEMNT ACE were very pleasant. When I have a new head unit, I usually have to move things around and add/delete screens and outputs. The ACE was plug-and-play. I’m usually a Garmin user, so this came as a surprise to me as well. I’ve tested and ridden lots of Wahoo gear but never preferred their head units until the ACE. 

Ride Profiles 

As of right now, there are two ride profiles to pick from: Cycling and Indoor Cycling. It’s simple and easy, though I do like the option of having a ‘mountain biking’ setting on my Garmin, but I rarely use it.

Data Screens

The data screens are laid out similarly to the other Wahoo head units. There is a zoom-in/out for the various metrics you’d like to see. When you add a sensor, the Wahoo ACE asks you if you’d like to add the data to the screen. Then, it adds the data to the grid of outputs. Unlike Garmin, it doesn’t dedicate a full screen to the new data; it adds a small output on the grid, which I prefer. 

There are many data outputs; you can customize what you’d like. However, the default ones are pretty extensive. If there’s too much data for you, simply zoom in, and you’ll have less to worry about. 

Though the colored LED lights on the side of the unit are gone, they are there in spirit. When you’re in a specific zone, be it power or heart rate, the box around the data will appear in a corresponding color. This color corresponds to the zone you’re in, and it is a great way to see if your power and heart rate are decoupling. 

Lap Summary 

When you hit the lap button (all buttons are labeled as well—super helpful), a screen populates with the previous lap output. This gives you a small breakdown of the data, but no further.  

Indoor Riding 

Riding indoors with the ELEMNT ACE is enjoyable (or as enjoyable as riding indoors can be). I selected “Indoor Cycling” as my ride workout profile, and aded the TACX NEO2 trainer and off I went. I was able to easily control my Wahoo KICKR Headwind Unit speed and NEO2 resistance from the ACE, which is a nice added convenience.   

App Integration: Getting my Training Peaks, Strava, and other apps all set up was easy enough. The list of Integrated Apps is short right now, but it will likely grow.

Strava Segments and Routes

If you’re looking for segments or want to find the nearest route on the map, it’s pretty easy. I didn’t go for any, but it didn’t take me long to pull up some that were nearby.

Wind and Aero Data 

I haven’t done a deep dive into the wind data, but it seems promising. As of right now, you can see Airboost (tailwind) and Airdrag (headwind) and then a percentage of your ride’s amount spent where. 

Much like the color change power and heart rate data, the WWD will display a color corresponding to your current status in the wind. 

Wahoo, let us know exactly what these colors mean: 

• Dark Green: The Airspeed data field will highlight dark green when you are in a “Heavy Airboost” scenario. This will occur when your ground speed is significantly greater than your Airspeed, such as in a heavy tailwind or if the rider is in a very good drafting position.
• Light Green: The Airspeed data field will highlight light green when you are in a “Light Airboost” scenario. This will occur when your ground speed is moderately more significant than your Airspeed. This occurs in a light tailwind or moderately good drafting position.
• Blue: The Airspeed data field will highlight blue when your ground speed and Airspeed are relatively the same.
• Orange: The Airspeed data field will highlight orange when you are in a “Light Airdrag” scenario. This will occur when your ground speed is moderately less than your Airspeed. This typically occurs in a light headwind.
• Red: The Airspeed data field will highlight red when you are in a “Heavy Airdrag” scenario. This will occur when your ground speed is significantly less than your Airspeed. This typically occurs in a heavy headwind.

Below is the output from a 2:00 hour gravel ride on the Montour Rail Trail with output from the Wahoo App.

How does Wahoo validate its WWD claims? To confirm their initial results, Wahoo’s Sports and Data Science team conducted comparison benchmark testing versus other similar devices in the market. In addition, they constructed a one-cubic-meter miniature wind tunnel at Wahoo HQ capable of providing consistent, laminar (smooth and orderly) airflow. Lastly, the Wahoo analytics teams conducted real-world testing sessions by renting a velodrome in Europe to test the sensor’s accuracy in a controlled setting. 

What about CdA and other aero-metrics? Wahoo says, “The hardware capabilities included in the device will support a range of increased functionality in the years to come.” In the future, you’ll have a way to measure which helmet is faster and which skinsuit is really worth $1K, etc., but until then, you’ll have to settle for how much time you’re in the draft and how much time you’re in the wind. 

Navigation 

The navigation and mapping screens are straightforward to read. It’s similar to the ELEMNT ROAM and uses routes and the “take me to” style navigation. The screen is super sensitive, and when you’re trying to see more of the map, there’s a chance you’re going to a different page. The pinching to zoom out is slightly complicated and can make wanting to navigate less appealing. As of right now, I haven’t fully taken advantage of the navigation features and only used the route creation. It’s lovely for following routes, though it would be nice to have in-ride routing. 

Battery Life 

The ACE’s battery life is very good so far. I haven’t needed a recharge. Wahoo claims 30+ hours, though I can’t fully attest to that. I can say it’s ticking down battery life slowly. 

Bell-Yeah! 

Did I mention there’s a bell? It’s a nice touch, though I’m not sure if users will know that it’s a feature until they accidentally happen upon it. Unlike the newer Garmin units, the bell isn’t easily called out. However, when you find it (a double tap on the screen), you’ll be happy you did. 

Final Impressions 

My experience with the Wahoo ELEMNT ACE has been very enjoyable thus far. The ACE will need a number of updates to live up to its billed potential, but that seems more and more common industry-wide as over-the-air updates became commonplace. It’s a heavy piece of gear, and I don’t see it flying off the shelves as an XC race computer. However, I do see many riders finding it to be a top-notch training partner and race companion. 

Look for a long-term review as we have more time on the Wahoo ELEMNT ACE. 

Pricing and Availability

• US: $599.99, CA: $849.99, EU: €599.99, UK: £549.99, AU: $999.

For more information, visit WahooFitness.com.

The post The Wahoo ELEMNT ACE Lands with Wind Sensor, Increased Battery Life appeared first on Bikerumor.

Let’s not beat around the bush, The Beam full-face Virgo Integral MIPS helmet looks pretty wild when you compare it to a conventional half-shell bike helmet – with its integrated chin bar and flip-down visor. But just like how DH full-face helmet tech has trickled down to a lot of lightweight convertible and full-face helmets for enduro and even some aggressive trail riders – it’s hard to argue with extra head protection.

The Beam Virgo Integral MIPS full-face city & ebike helmet

Full-face helmets are nothing new in cycling. But for some reason, they’ve really never made the transition from gravity mountain biking to more mainstream cycling.

The Beam Virgo full-face looks to break down that barrier with a lightweight and well-ventilated helmet that offers more of the light comfort, adjustable fit, and premium safety tech that we’ve come to expect from modern cycling helmets. Plus, of course, the added benefit of extra protection of the rider’s chin & face.

I’ve been following the development of this lightweight, multi-disciple full-face since it began as an aero road helmet almost 5 years ago. So, with my own adoption of more time riding a strange utilitarian ebike and a bright yellow cargo ebike, I was happy to test out this latest evolution of the Virgo full-face.

Why an ebike commuter full-face? Why not!

As more people have adopted ebikes as an alternative form of transportation, we have seen more helmets get ebike certifications – i.e. NTA 8776. Yet still, we still only really see ebike helmets going full-face for off-road-focused aggressive eMTB riding.

But, as commuter ebikes share more of the road and urban environment, it makes sense that ebike helmets could start to look a bit more like a scooter or moto helmet.

When you are riding back and forth to work amongst car traffic, or zipping around town on quick & powerful ebikes, The Beam Virgo Integral MIPS helmet simply offers extra peace of mind in a lightweight and comfortable helmet at a reasonable price. And it delivers enough ventilation that you won’t really roast when you have to pedal a bit on your own, too.

Tech Details & Actual Weight

The Beam developed the Virgo full-face to not only comply with the regular EN1078 / CPSC bike certification standards, but also to meet the more stringent European NTA-8776 regulation created for higher-speed (45kph/28mph) pedelec ebikes.

The French-designed helmet features a unique multi-layer construction. First, there’s essentially a more conventional in-mold half-shell helmet – with just a plastic shell molded over the edges of its EPS foam energy absorbing layer for wear & tear protection. Then, molded on the outside of that, there’s the complete ABS shell with separate in-mold EPS around the cheeks and chin bar for additional protection.

Lastly, inside it all, is a black MIPS Evolve Core liner insert to isolate your head from rotational forces in an impact.

• unique multi-part construction for conventional impacts, plus separate face protection
• ABS shell with in-mold EPS foam
• 5 forward & top facing vents, 4 rear exhaust vents & small internal ventilation channels
• fixed height dial-adjustable fit system, with adjustable nylon webbing chinstrap & plastic buckle
• removable, washable, sweat-wicking padding and separate padded cheek cushions
• optional, removable visors (glasses-friendly)
• optional, removable magnetic taillight
• designed in France, made in China
• EN 1078 / CPSC / NTA 8776 certified
• 3 adult + 1 child size available
• lightweight, starting as low as 600-650g claimed (size Small, without visor)

Our size medium The Beam Virgo Integral MIPS full-face helmet has an official claimed weight of 710g without its visor, but measures a real 706g.

But the actual weight with the visor is 786g, plus an additional 28g when the smart tail (brake) light is mounted.

Lighter than most MTB full-face helmets

As a mountain biker who spends plenty of time riding long travel trail, enduro, freeride, and the occasional downhill bike, there wasn’t really even any mental obstacle to opting for a full-face helmet for ebike riding. In fact, while riding commuter bikes or even trail bikes in the winter, I’ve already been apt to put on a lightweight enduro full face and goggles to get a bit of extra weather protection with the added safety just a bonus.

Weight-wise, I have a couple of light enduro MTB full-face helmets that are lighter (Dainese & Endura) than the Virgo without its visor, but only the Endura is lighter once I factor in a pair of goggles, and then only by about 10g. Only the Dainese has MIPS, and neither are NTA-8776 certified. What that says is that comparing apples to apples (or at least to pears), The Beam’s Virgo Integral MIPS is truly a lightweight when it comes to full-face protection.

Riding Review

I’ve ridden the Virgo Integral MIPS mostly through autumn, with my ebike rides generally leaning towards jackets and gloves weather, so I really can’t vouch for how it will do on hot summer days when you have to pedal uphill by yourself. Or when your ebike battery will run out. But I have ridden in cold enough weather to notice that the vents do let a good bit of air in, so I definitely put a thin windproof cap on when it got closer to freezing.

I picked the sand tan helmet to test because I figured the lighter color would offer improved visibility to drivers. And I have the clear Crystal visor, which still has a tiny bit of a gray tint, although it’s completely fine for riding at night with lights.

The visor itself doesn’t have any specific handles or tabs to move it. But it sits far enough away from my face that I have no problem pushing it up or down by the visor’s edges, even with winter gloves. When it’s not exceptionally cold, I like to ride with the visor up so I can feel the wind on my face. Or half way up which offers a tiny bit of shading against the setting sun. But on especially cold, windy, or even rainy days, dropping the visor down is great.

Virgo Integral’s snap-on Smart Rear Light

I especially like the Virgo Integral’s included rear smart taillight (optional on Access models), as it greatly boosts nighttime and low-light visibility.

It puts out a steady 40 lumens of red light, then powered by an on-board accelerometer, it automatically boosts to 120 lumens when braking for added visibility. The water-resistant 28g USB-C rechargeable taillight has a 400mAh battery for a claimed runtime of 20 hours, and a 2hr recharge time – both of which seem to match my real-world use.

The Smart rear light is StVZO-certified, and comes in a package with the top-spec Virgo Integral models, or sells for 49€ separately.

Riding Takeaways

If you are only used to road, gravel, or conventional urban commuter helmets, The Beam Virgo Integral MIPS full-face is a pretty shocking switch. And I won’t lie, the first comments that I’ve got from coworkers, friends, and family were often astonishment why I would want a helmet that they thought looked more like a motorcycle helmet than a commuter bike helmet.

But on second thought, pretty much everyone understands that more coverage and more protection means improved safety. And what other reason do we wear helmets than to keep our heads safe?

Plus, more ebikes means more time sharing the road with cars, more inexperienced riders on heavier ebikes (vs. conventional bikes), and maybe even higher average speeds. So there’s good reason to offer more protection to the heads of ebikers. And The Beam’s Virgo Integral full face does all that in a lightweight and comfortable helmet, that I personally feel better riding.

The Beam Virgo Integral – Pricing, options & availability

The Beam offers their Virgo full-face helmet in 3 sizes: S(51-54cm), M (55-58cm) & L (59-63cm. Then, you get to pick from 4 colors – black, white, navy blue & sand (tested). And then, if you get one of the top-tier Integral models, it comes with your choice of 4 visor options – lightly tinted Crystal (tested), dark smoke tinted Black, reflective Polarized Blue, bronze-tinted Yellow.

Lastly, The Beam Virgo is available in 4 spec options to hit all price points: Integral includes both the visor of your choice and the taillight. Access is without a visor (but one could still be added later).

Technically, it looks like only the top-tier is available in the US-specific web store, at the moment. But global delivery is available from the European webshop, so you might just have slightly higher shipping costs or extra delivery time.

The top-spec The Beam Virgo Integral MIPS full-face (as tested) sells for $299 / 299€, directly from The Beam’s online shop. Get rid of the visor & that smart taillight, and the Virgo Access MIPS retails for just 239€. Or without the extra rotational impact protection, the Virgo Integral sells for 229€ with the accessories, and the Virgo Access goes for 179€ without.

There are also even cheaper XS (48-50cm) & S (51-54cm) kids versions for just 99€ in more child-oriented colors, too.

As an extra holiday shopping deal now in Europe, if you buy any Virgo helmet right now, The Beam will give you a free visor and a helmet Reflector reflective sticker for free, making it cheaper to get a visor-equipped commuter full-face. (Apply code: VIRGOSTYLE at checkout after adding the accessories).

TheBeam-Europe.com

The post The Beam Virgo Integral Helmet Gives eBike & Commuters Extra Full-Face Protection: Review appeared first on Bikerumor.

Testing gear is always fun, but it’s awesome when the right piece comes your way at just the right time and becomes an instant favorite. 7mesh hit the nail on the head, setting me up with their new Spruce Hoody just as late fall/early winter conditions hit British Columbia.

The Spruce Hoody is an ideal outer or mid-layer for cool rides, offering excellent heat and moisture regulation. It’s impressively warm while remaining thin and lightweight, the fit worked very well for me and its lean hood can fit over a helmet for extra weather protection. This hoody is a priceless piece of kit for cool, dry rides!

7mesh Spruce Hoody – Construction and Features:

The Spruce Hoody is made from a new WTV 200 fabric, a lighter version of 7mesh’s WTV 300 (featured on the Chilco Anorak I reviewed a few years ago). WTV 200 is a thin but lofty waffle-constructed fabric. The WTV 200 offers better venting of heat and moisture versus WTV 300, keeping you from overheating when you’re pushing the pedals hard. One thing this fabric does not offer is waterproofing – no level of water resistance is claimed for the Spruce Hoody.  

The Spruce Hoody features a full front zipper with a fleece chin guard. The waist hem and cuffs use slim elastic binding to keep them fitting snugly in a lightweight manner. For storage, the hoody includes two zippered hand pockets. String pulls on the main zipper and pockets ensure easy operation with gloved hands.

Although it’s not bulky and doesn’t look big, the Spruce hoody’s hood does fit over a helmet. 7mesh did not include their Stash System stuff pocket/attachment hooks on the Spruce Hoody. The hoody isn’t super packable, but should easily fit into almost any hydration pack.

Ride Impressions: Fit

At 5’10” with a slim build, the size medium Spruce Hoody fit me very well. The arms are long enough and the body is an ideal length for me, reaching below my waist in the front and to the bottom of my butt.

The overall fit is not tight but not too baggy anywhere. I found no issues with any restriction of mobility in this hoody. The elastic at the waist is great: It’s just enough to keep the hoody close to your body without feeling tight or restrictive at all.

I really like the Spruce Hoody’s collar, as it is tall and roomy enough to hide behind in cooler weather. When it’s zipped down, it falls off to the sides and out of the way.

I did try climbing with the hood pulled over my Oakley DRT5 helmet, and it worked very well. There is enough room in the hood that unless I looked directly upwards my head wasn’t tugging the whole hoody up. If you reach the limits of the hoody’s cut, the WTV 200 fabric is stretchy enough to allow a bit of added mobility. Visibility was very good with the hood up, the sides don’t block any of your view and the hood turns pretty well with your head. Also, even without any cinches the hood never slipped off my helmet. It seems 7mesh nailed the size of the hood, and its stretchy fabric held it in place.

While this was usually not an issue, on one ride I noticed the cuffs slid up and off my gloves several times. Even so, they remained snug enough behind the gloves to not let the wind blow up my sleeves. I suspect my camera backpack was tugging the hoody’s arms upwards a bit during this ride, as I typically did not experience this problem. The cuff elastics aren’t particularly tight, but they held their place 95% of the time. 7mesh also says the cuffs are designed to stay in place when pushed up your arm. I did try this during one ride and they stayed put for me.

Temperature Regulation:

Undoubtedly the Spruce Hoody’s best asset is its excellent temperature and moisture regulation. I wore this hoody on every one of my rides throughout October and November, and it was the perfect piece of kit.

With short or long-sleeved jerseys underneath, I rode the Spruce Hoody in temperatures ranging from about 6-12° Celsius. The hoody performed great, and I was surprised at how warm it kept me considering how thin it is. However, it never allowed me to get too sweaty inside. Riding from windy open areas to shady trails, the hoody kept me consistently comfortable throughout changing temperatures.  

After some continuous climbing, I would start to sweat in the Spruce hoody, but it’s clear this fabric breathes very well. Even after warming up, I could just keep pedaling without overheating. When you’re really cranking away, the full front zipper is an effective option for dumping lots of heat. Yes, the WTV 200 fabric is already an awesome regulator, but it’s nice to be able to completely open the hoody when you’re working hard. On cooler rides, I didn’t touch the zipper as the fabric worked well enough itself, but the full zipper was useful in warmer temperatures.

In cooler temps of roughly 4-6° Celsius, I tried two jackets over top of the Spruce Hoody (with short-sleeved jerseys underneath). First I tried adding a very thin Specialized windbreaker to ensure a warm start to my ride. I stayed warm and cozy to the trailhead and had to pull off the windbreaker as soon as I started climbing. The Spruce Hoody’s impressive warmth took over from there, keeping me comfortable and dry throughout the ride.

On a rainy day in similar temperatures, I rode the waterproof Patagonia Dirt Roamer Storm jacket over the Spruce Hoody. I got pretty warm for the last few minutes of this climb, but again the hoody did a fine job of not letting me feel clammy or damp inside.

On these cool rides, I noticed when I stopped for a rest the Spruce Hoody would lose excess heat quickly, but only to a point. My core would drop from ‘hot’ to ‘comfortably warm’ within minutes, but then stay right there (even while I hung around shooting photos).

Layering and Wind Resistance:

I should definitely note how well the Spruce Hoody layers up. Its hood and collar are thin enough that they don’t feel bulky under an outer layer, and the overall fit is trim enough to fit inside a jacket without bunching up anywhere. Finally, this hoody’s last trick is how it vents heat so well, yet still provides good wind resistance. The WTV 200 fabric keeps the wind at bay while you’re hanging out on the trailside, and resists it enough that cold wind won’t cut through you while you’re sending it downhill.

I’ve only had the Spruce Hoody for two months, but so far there is no damage, excess wear and tear, or functional issues with it. Last but not least it’s always nice to get double duty from your gear, and I would happily wear this cozy hoody as a casual piece any day of the week.

MSRP for the Spruce Hoody is $180. Men’s color options are Black, Raisin, or Bamboo (as tested). Women’s models are available in Black or Bamboo. Men’s and women’s sizes range from XS-XXL.

7mesh.com

The post The 7mesh Spruce Hoody Is A Top-Notch Temperature Regulator appeared first on Bikerumor.

It’s been over 10 years since Fair Wheel Bikes in Tucson, AZ first shared with us their independent bar & stem testing, but they are back at it, measuring real stiffness in a new crop of 15 modern road & gravel bike stems. What do you prefer: absolute lightest weight, maximum stiffness, the highest stiffness:weight ratio, or maybe some happy medium that might not break the bank. Fair Wheel does the testing so we can all make more informed buying decisions.

Fair Wheel Bikes tests real road & gravel bike stem stiffness

So why did Fair Wheel dust off their test rig? We spoke to long-time head of the shop Jason Woznick, and he said simply that, “it has been about a decade since we did testing…. [and] we wanted to re-test, bars, stems and cranks and see how things have changed.”

Sounds good to us.

I’ve personally known Fair Wheel since around 2001 or so. That’s when I was first introduced to the shop and their weight-weenie ways by a friend who’d worked in there before moving to the East Coast. And then, soon after I headed to meet them in Tucson in person when traveling out to race the 24 Hours in the Old Pueblo. Fair Wheel bikes has catered to both local looking for trusted service, and bike nerds from far & wide hunting the most exotic components and some of the world’s lightest bike builds.

Although we didn’t get to it then, Fair Wheel recently celebrated their 50th-anniversary last year by updating their road crankarm and handlebar stiffness tests with some more of the latest & greatest modern models. You can check out that May 2023 road crank test here or their updated November 2023 road bar test here.

But now let’s get back to stems.

Why do we trust Fair Wheel Bike’s independent component testing?

The beauty of Fair Wheel Bikes testing components is three-fold. First, they’ve been around for more than half a century, and they kept the same test rig in the back of the shop just waiting. Secondly, they are super analytical but practical, so they keep their tests simple and use the exact same test protocol today as when they started testing components.

And lastly, they’re kind of a bunch of nerds. OK, definitely fellow bike nerds… our favorite type.

Check out their original 2014 stem tests, here.

Stem deflection testing methodology

Their stem stiffness testing is just measuring stem deflection – how far a stem bends under a repeatable load. Again, Fair Wheel brought back their “favorite engineer” Jason Krantz to run the tests. He’s now a mechanical engineer at a global company developing testing & measurement equipment. But he also worked in the cycling industry over his career, for example designing bikes at Titus and sharing our journalistic focus at Bicycle Retailer and Industry News back in the 90s.

The stem deflection testing protocol he developed fixes the stem in a rigid frame, then applies a uniform 100lb (~45kg) load 10″ (~25cm) away from the centerline of the stem. The test simulates a reasonable approximation of the force when a rider is sprinting, pulling against the bar – up on one side, down on the other – as they try to pedal as hard as possible. But the exact force/load/weight doesn’t really matter, as deflection is linear, and they are comparing all stems with the same forces.

Fair Wheel has tried to minimize variables as much as possible. Their methodology says all stems should be 110mm long and -6° of rise, with a 1.125″ steerer clamp and 31.8mm bar clamp. But some stems tested were not available in that exact size, so there’s +1° variability in angle and -5mm variability for just two stems (105mm Pro Vibe Sprint Carbon & Syntace F119). But they explain why that may or may not matter.

What is stiffness?

Something of a disclaimer… neither Fair Wheel nor us at Bikerumor are necessarily saying that greater stiffness actually means a better stem.

Maybe some lighter or even all-road & gravel riders might like a bit of compliance in their stem?

And the Fair Wheel test doesn’t even touch on the potential vibration damping that some materials can provide, independently of stiffness.

But if you are looking for cockpit rigidity for some reduction of energy loss or improved handling performance benefits, stem stiffness is certainly a good place to start in comparisons. And so, we’re pretty psyched that Fair Wheel is there out crunching these numbers for everyone to see.

Scroll down to the bottom of this article if you want to read Fair Wheel’s own detailed description.

2024 Fair Wheel stem stiffness tests’ results

Top 5 Stiffest

1. FSA SL-K at just 3.7mm deflection, made of 2014 aluminum with steel bolts
2. FWB machined Ti prototype at just 3.7mm deflection, made of titanium with ti bolts
3. Ritchey Superlogic C260 at just 3.7mm deflection, made of 2024 aluminum with steel bolts
4. ENVE Carbon at just 4.2mm deflection, made of carbon with ti bolts
5. Uno Stealth at just 4.5mm deflection, made of 2024 aluminum with stainless steel or titanium bolts

Top 5 Lightest

1. Extralite Hyperstem at 82.5g from 7075 aluminum with titanium bolts
2. THM Tibia at 91g from carbon with titanium bolts
3. MCFK Carbon at 92.3g from carbon with titanium bolts
4. Schmolke TLO (ICR) at 94.5g from carbon with titanium bolts
5. Uno Stealth ti at 104.7g from aluminum with titanium bolts

Top 5 Stiffness:Weight Ratio

1. Extralite Hyperstem with 5.6mm deflection at 82.5g for a 2.16 S/W ratio
2. Uno Stealth ti with 4.5mm deflection at 104.7g for a 2.12 S/W ratio
3. Ritchey WCS C260 with 4.7mm deflection at 108.1g for a 1.97 S/W ratio
4. Ritchey Superlogic C260 with 4.1mm deflection at 128g for a 1.91S/W ratio
5. FSA SL-K with 3.7mm deflection at 144g for a 1.88 S/W ratio

Complete 2024 Test Data

Combined 2014 & 2024 Test Data

Bonus stem stiffness content

Quoting Woznick again, “If you’ve made it this far, you’re probably quite interested in the topic in general. For some bonus content we decided to run a test of the same stem in 8 different lengths. You may be surprised how predictable the differences in the results really are.“

My Bikerumor Takeaways from Fair Wheel’s stem tests

My first impression when looking at the new data and comparing it to the old was that on average the new stems are 7.1% lighter but 8.9% less stiff, giving them an average 2.7% decrease in stiffness:weight. Fair Wheel clarified a bit that we probably can’t so easily compare the figures overall, as the individual stems mostly fell in similar ranges. But they did note that new to the 2024 testing were some prototype titanium stems, which are stiffer, but also heavier, skewing the averages a bit.

It is hard though for me to overlook that there were already 8 stems in 2014 (out of 25) with ~4mm or less deflection, while only 2 were so stiff in the new 2024 batch (of 15). I take that to suggest that the industry as a whole might not really be trying hard to make stems stiffer, as much as they are trying to improve aerodynamics & integration.

On the other hand, looking closely though at like stems (Ritchey & FSA, for example where there are essentially the same models in 2014 & 2024), it seems the newer iterations are either a bit lighter or a bit stiffer. That fits with the idea that component engineers are trying to incrementally improve performance, even on basic components like stems.

Fair Wheel’s Takeaways

Jason Woznick of Fair Wheel Bikes did say that he sees, “that as an industry trend, stems have gotten disproportionally heavier than they have stiffer. This is likely due to more modern stems accommodating internal cabling. We plan on doing more testing with more internally routed stems to bear this out a bit more.“

Of note outside of just looking at the numbers, Fair Wheel also adds that their testing shows for road components “the more aero a bar or stem is the more compliant it will be since flat surfaces deflect more than a round one“. So that’s also a bit more context on interpreting their data.

Lastly, let’s all thank Fair Wheel for doing the work to help us pick what components we want on our bikes!

FairWheelBikes.com

Complete Fair Wheel Bikes description of their stem testing process, in their own words…

Stem Deflection Testing:

We’ve once again brought back our favorite engineer, Jason Krantz. Jason’s a mechanical engineer whose graduate work focused on the intersection of composite materials and finite element analysis. Jason has worked for several companies in the bicycle industry and never fails to amaze us with the depth of his cycling related knowledge.

Disclaimer: A lot of typing and numbers have gone into this article and we apologize in advance for any typos should they happen, but would warn that the possibility of mistakes is present.

Some Initial Notes on Testing

Testing Method:

Each stem was mounted in the fixture and the testing performed 3 times and then averaged. All stems tested were 11cm with the exception of a few which are not available in those lengths. Each stem was mounted with its recommended torque specs and preloaded with 20 pounds of force applied 10 inches from the stem (about half way between a road bar and mtb bar) Once preloaded the equipment was zeroed and another 100 pounds of force was added and a measurement recorded. The measurement was taken at the point of load, again 10 inches from the stem centerline.

Loads Tested:

While the actual load doesn’t matter because the response of the structure is linear. [That is, a stem with a stiffness of 150-foot pounds per degree will deflect one degree with a torque of 150 foot-pounds and two degrees with a torque of 300 foot-pounds.] Jason selected a load of 100 pounds because it’s a nice round number, and pretty realistic to what some riders may experience.

For a sprinting rider, let’s say he is pushing on the left pedal with 300lbf (in other words, he can squat 600lbs). The pedal is about half as far from the frame centerline as the handlebar is, so it would take a reaction force of 150lbs at the right-hand bar to counteract the pedaling force. This is the same as applying 75lbf up on the one side of the bar and 75lbf down on the other; the moment at the stem is the same.

Normalizing for Stem Length:

In theory, it’s possible to measure a particular stem of one length and extrapolate its results to longer or shorter versions of the same stem model. In technical terms, this is “normalizing for stem length.” We can do this because torsional displacement is directly proportional to length for a tube of a given cross section. It’s true that a good engineer will use thinner walls on shorter stems (which see lower stresses) and thicker walls on longer stems (which see higher stresses). Still, normalizing to length within a single stem make and model is valid to a first approximation, at least with metal stems. A composite stem is a different beast, because layups (AKA laminate schedules) can vary significantly with length.

While torsional displacement is directly proportional to stem length, bending displacement is proportional to the cube of the length. Our first pass at a stem test setup measures combined bending and torsional displacement, so it would not be valid to extrapolate to longer or shorter stems, even within the same model, at least if you’re looking for absolute values.

If you’re interested in relative values–for example, if you want to know whether stem A is stiffer than stem B–then these results should be quite useful regardless of the actual length you intend to use.

For this test we used 11cm stems in every case except 2 (Pro Vibe Sprint Carbon and Syntace F119) which are both 10.5cm. The stems were similar enough in length that we did not normalize any stems in this test, but in the future we may test some stems that need to be normalized for a fair comparison.

Stiffness to Weight Ratio:

This was calculated using =((1/avg. defl) / weight) * 1000

Bolt Material:

One question we wanted to answer was if there was a noticeable difference between stems with titanium and steel bolts. We selected a few random stems and tested them both with titanium and steel bolts and found no meaningful difference in deflection in stems with one material over the other.

Mounting Direction:

We also wanted to see if mounting a stem with a rise vs a drop made a difference in the deflection. While we were able to measure a difference, less than 0.1 mm at 100 pounds, it was not enough to say that there is a meaningful difference, and was likely within the margin of error of the testing.

Notes about Stem Angles:

One other item we wanted to test was the difference in like stems with different angles. We tested a couple of stems that are available in both 7 and 17 degree angles and found that 17 degree stems deflected an average of 7% less. The tested stems vary from 5 to 10 degrees which should result in deflection variations of up to about 3%, so keep that in mind when comparing two stems of different angles.

Carbon Fiber vs. Aluminum:

Carbon fiber stems don’t offer the weight savings that, say, carbon fiber rims do. There’s a reason for this: stems are regularly stressed in three ways: bending, torsion and shear. In other words, the stresses in a stem are nearly isotropic (uniform in all directions). Carbon fiber is highly anisotropic (stiffer/stronger in one direction than in the others). When you try to lay up anisotropic carbon to deal with isotropic stresses, you end up with what engineers refer to as “black aluminum,” or pseudo isotropic carbon–and a weight that’s very close to an aluminum stem.

There may be other advantages to a carbon stem; vibration damping is one that is often put to the forefront of the debate. It’s true that composite structures generally damp vibration better than metallic ones, and there may be real-world damping benefits to a carbon stem. One way to test stem damping would be to wire an accelerometer to the stem and then strike it gently with a hammer, reading the accelerometer data to see how quickly the vibrations dissipated. This ring-down test may be on the Fair Wheel menu for a future article, but is outside the scope of this test.

Mixed materials:

Hybrid stems, a carbon overlay on an alloy stem. We tested only a couple of these but neither did well, we’ll do more testing on others in the future to develop our thoughts on this medium further.

We tested two similar stems one in full alloy (7s) and one in hybrid (vibe carbon) to see if there was an advantage to the hybrid stems. Both are the same weight and same dimensions with the same puzzle lock clamp. The difference being that the Carbon has thinner alloy, reinforced with carbon. Deflection was noticeably different, the full alloy was significantly stiffer than alloy/carbon.

To speculate on why tests put carbon/aluminum stems on the flexible end of the spectrum, one might consider two competing design constraints. First is galvanic corrosion. When aluminum and carbon touch each other, they’ve made a weak battery. The electron-swapping that goes on will cause an aluminum/carbon part to fail in short order. To avoid this, manufacturers use a layer of insulating material. This layer is often a fiberglass/epoxy composite but could be plain epoxy. Neither material is as stiff as aluminum, so you’re taking a stiffness loss right away.

Secondly, the market won’t tolerate a carbon-wrapped aluminum stem that is both more expensive and heavier than its plain-aluminum counterpart. So manufacturers are forced to use thinner-walled aluminum forgings for their carbon-wrapped stems than they do for their straight-up aluminum stems. Effectively, they’re replacing relatively stiff aluminum with relatively compliant fiberglass and/or epoxy.

Making matters worse, some carbon-wrapped aluminum stems use a 0°/90° weave for aesthetic reasons. This weave’s stiffness reflects the dreaded pseudo isotropy referred to earlier, and is particularly compliant in shear–which, in a stem, determines torsional stiffness.

The net result is a carbon-look stem that has adequate strength but more compliance (and possibly better vibration damping) than a “pure” aluminum stem.

To be clear, the above is what engineers call a SWAG: a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess. It’s a reasonable first pass, but there may be other factors at play that we haven’t considered and which will be further explored in future tests.

The post How Stiff is Your Stem? Fair Wheel Updates Independent Road & Gravel Bike Stem Tests appeared first on Bikerumor.