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.

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.

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.

Earlier this year, Bontrager launched four all-new MTB treads. Those tires started with the super-fast Vallnord, ranging up to the all-around trail tire called the Gunnison. Now Bontrager is completing their new MTB tire lineup with the most aggressive options in the lineup – the Brevard and Galbraith.

Like those launched in April, the Brevard and Galbraith ditch the ‘XR/SE’ naming convention of the outgoing tires. Instead, the tires take naming inspiration from legendary MTB zones where the tire would be appropriate. For enduro and aggressive trail, the Brevard replaces the XR5/SE5 while the Galbraith replaces the SE6.

The new naming structure also includes some changes to the levels and constructions. While the old tires went from Comp, to Expert, to Team issue for Entry/Good/Best, the new level goes Comp, Elite, Pro, and RSL for the top end. Constructions are noted as XR for XC/Trail, XT for Trail, SE for Enduro, and G for Downhill. That gives you three parts of the name, as in Brevard RSL SE which would be the top-level Brevard tire in an SE casing. Four parts if you add the TLR Tubeless Ready acronym.

Named after Brevard, North Carolina, the Brevard is optimized for loose and mixed terrain. Looking at the tread pattern, it’s hard not to think Minion, which is fine since it’s one of the most popular all-around aggressive tires.

The Galbraith is named for Bellingham, Washinton’s Galbraith Mountain, and these tires claim to be ideal for anything from rocky to loose, soft, and loamy trail conditions like you’d find in the Pacific Northwest.

The Brevard tire comes in either Bontrager’s new Trail Dual-Compound, or their Trail Triple-Compound. The Galbraith is only offered in Triple-Compound which adds softer shoulder compounds for better cornering grip, a medium center for climbing and braking grip, and a firm base for knob support. The Dual-Compound uses a medium shoulder for cornering grip and a firmer center for faster rolling and better longevity.

Both tires are also offered in Bontrager’s new RSL SE construction which uses a 60TPI casing with sidewall, bead-to-bead, and apex puncture protection. This is the only casing offered for the Galbraith, but the Brevard also comes in XR and XT. According to Trek’s testing, the new SE casing improved pinch-flat resistance by an impressive 33% on the Brevard compared to the SE5, while the Galbraith improved by 26% from the SE6.

The Galbraith is also only available as a 29 x 2.5″ tire, while the Brevard is offered 29 x 2.5 and 27.5 x 2.5.

Actual Weight

These tires have thick casings and a lot of rubber. As a result, they’re not super light at 1406g for the Brevard RSL SE 29 x 2.5, and 1414g for the Galbraith RSL SE 29 x 2.5.

First Impressions

First impressions always start with the installation, and for me that meant mounting to a pair of Forge + Bond 30 AM wheels with a 30mm internal width. Out of the box, the Bontrager tires are pretty stiff and were a bit of a challenge to mount to the rim. An application of Schwalbe Easy Fit Tire Mounting Fluid seemed to help. Still, I had to use a tool at points, but once they were on the beads easily popped into place. I mounted the Galbraith to the front and the Brevard to the rear in hopes that the Galbraith would help hook up on the sketchy loose-over-hard fall conditions.

Starting at my usual 21psi rear, 19psi front, it was immediately apparent that these tires are stout. I could definitely feel the weight difference from the 19 x 2.4″ Maxxis Dissectors that came off the bike, but the trade-off was a nicely damped ride feel.

The SE casing is supportive enough that I started lowering the air pressure, eventually setting at 16/17psi front/rear. Even at those pressures on a light weight ebike, it didn’t feel overly squirmy and offered excellent traction.

All of my rides so far have been in the same conditions – tons of leaves, acorns, walnuts, and sticks over rock-hard dirt. This time of year you can’t even see the trail in most spots, so you really have to trust your tires. So far, the Bontragers have worked out pretty well as long as you’re OK with some controlled sliding. Understandably, with so much loose debris on top of the trails, the tires haven’t been locked into place, but the sliding is predictable and there is still plenty of grip while climbing and braking. The tires also improved quickly with some miles, but it’s still early.

Pricing & Availability

Available now, the Brevard and Galbraith RSL SE TLR both sell for $69.99. The Brevard is also offered in Black/Tan.

The post Bontrager Charges Into Big Terrain with New Brevard & Galbraith Enduro MTB Tires appeared first on Bikerumor.

No one likes a flat tire, and the industry has worked tirelessly (zing!) to develop more straightforward and efficient ways to fix punctures. Stan’s (one of the OGs in tubeless sealant technology) has updated their unique DART system, this time working alongside Daysaver to help store and keep the updated tool lasting longer and performing consistently. 

What is the Stan’s Incredible DART?

The DART is a plug-style tubeless flat tool that uses a unique blow-dart-style insert to fill cuts in the tire carcass. The flexible nature and flower-style design of the DART plug allow it to fit nicely into large and small tire cuts and cover more space. 

What’s New? 

The Stan’s Incredible DART builds on the base design launched some years ago. There was never a great storage solution for the DART; you mostly had to store it in your jersey pocket, but it wasn’t a burden – it was just easy to forget (or lose, in my case). 

The updated Incredible DART design focuses on elegant storage and ease of use. Stan’s partnered with the engineers at Daysaver in Switzerland to create this sleek, updated design that will be much harder to forget.

How Does the Stan’s Incredible DART Install? 

The Incredible DART can be installed inside a handlebar (with Stan’s Incredible Handlebar Mount, sold separately) or stored in a pocket or backpack like the OG DART. 

Stan’s supplies three different grommets with the Incredible DART handlebar kit, and they should fit most flat bars. To install the Stan’s Incredible DART on your bars, all you need to do is install the grommet on the tool (opposite the side of the Stan’s logo) and slide the tool onto the bar end clip. 

Next, tighten the 3mm fitting while the quick release is engaged and secure the fit. To use the tool, flip the quick release, and the tool will slide out when you pull the tab. Then, you’re ready to fix a flat.  Also – the new Stan’s DART works with any of Daysaver’s modular Incredible tool ecosystems. 

How Do You Use the Stan’s Incredible DART? 

If you’re familiar with tire plugs or bacon strip-style repairs, the Stan’s Incredible DART works nearly the same. You take the tool out of your bar end (or your pocket) and twist the tool while holding the silver alloy piece. 

Twisting will pop the spring-loaded DART installation bit and DART plug from their hidden home in the tool. Mind how quickly you turn the preloaded tool—I’ve had the DART plug fling off into the installation tool. 

Then locate your flat, and push the Stan’s Incredible DART plug into the puncture. The installation tool has a bottom-out feature that only allows the plug to be installed at a certain depth. 

After you successfully install the DART plug, spin the wheel and flood the puncture site with the tubeless sealant in your tires (Stan’s or not). After this, you should be ready to inflate and roll. 

If you unfortunately get another flat (we’ve all been there), the new Incredible DART holds three DART plugs. So you should be good to get home or at least go to a corner store. 

First Impressions: Stan’s Incredible DART

I’m a fan of the current Stan’s DART, it’s easy to use and fits in my flat kit. My only complaint is that it takes up more space than the bacon strips or slim Dyna Plug tool. It seems that the updated Stan’s Incredible DART has solved most of those problems.

The installation installation is easy enough, and the tool is well-designed. I like how resilient the design is. The alloy outer looks like it will last the long haul, and the tool doesn’t rattle in your bars, thanks to the various-sized grommets in the hardware kit.

A No-Go For Most Road

I was bummed to see that it wouldn’t work in any of my drop bar bikes. There is a minimal chance it could work with gravel bars that are very flared, but that’s wishful thinking. As I imagine, this is a flat bar-only install tool. BUT its slimmer and cylindrical design is better for packing and storing quickly.

The updated tool design is a nice improvement and upgrade from the current model. The spring-loaded piece is a bit novel, and it’s not just for show; it works, and that’s all that matters. Just don’t spring your DART plug into the woods.

Premium Price for Premium Tools

The cost is significantly higher than that of the original model. The Stan’s DART tool (OG) is $25.00, with refills being $20.00. The new Stan’s Incredible DART is $72.00, and an extra $35.00 if you want the hardware kit. That means getting the whole kit (hardware for the bar installation) will cost $107.00.

Why the price increase? The OG DART is crafted out of plastic and is slightly less refined. The new Stan’s Incredible DART feels like a tool that you can get more use out of, one that will last a long time — primarily because of its alloy construction.

Is it worth the extra cost? I would say yes – especially if you’re a Stan’s DART fan. The tool fits seamlessly into the bars of most flat-bar bikes (it fits all of mine, but I don’t want to say it fits them all). Plus, the tool design is cool, and I like cool, neat tools, especially practical ones.

What about the weight? The original Stan’s DART weighs 15g with two DART plugs in the chamber. The Stan’s Incredible DART weighs slightly more, at 37g with the hardware piece and 29g as just the tool.

Stan’s Incredible DART 

• Include 3 DART heads
• Precision engineered in Switzerland
• Compatible with Daysaver’s modular Incredible tool ecosystem
• Incredible DART Handlebar Mount sold separately
• 6061-T6 alloy body
• Color: Silver with laser-etched logos
• Made in Taiwan
• Compostable packaging 
• Weight:
• Price: $72.00 (tool only) $35.00 (Hardware Mount)

Stans.com

The post Stan’s Teams Up with Daysaver On Incredible DART Tool to Help Save Your Ride appeared first on Bikerumor.

I want to talk a bit about bike grips. More specifically, the Ergon GE1 Evo Factory grips. I’m a fan of Ergon Bike products. I use their SM Pro Men’s saddles when not riding my trusty Brooks B17. And for grips, I’ve used Ergon grips for over 6 years.

First, it was their GA2 and then I switched to the GA3, which I ran for most of the 6 years. I use their GP1 Evo (the one with the big “wings”… you’ve all seen them around) on my Rivendell Clem Smith Jr. And, most recently, I’ve fallen for their GE1 Evo Factory for the mountain bikes in the stable.

The GE1 Evo Factory is by far my favorite Ergon grip. I use this grip on both of my all-mountain bikes, the Haro Saguaro 1, and the Salsa Blackthorn. I wasn’t planning on reviewing them, but I think they’re great and thought I’d share my thoughts.

Ergon = Bike Ergonomics

Ergon Bike is a German company that focuses all of its attention on making our riding experience more comfy. They have a staff full of people like physicians, engineers, and even sports scientists. They focus their products on the ergonomics of human anatomy. This kind of focus, in my opinion, is highlighted in the comfort of their products.

If you want to find a grip and saddle that fit your body and needs, check out the Grip Selector and Saddle Selector.

I mean, they aren’t messing around over there.

The Ergon GE1 Evo Factory Grip

Retail: $40

The Ergon GE1 Evo Factory Grip is an ergonomic mountain bike-specific grip that was developed in partnership with Ergon’s Enduro World Series athletes. Ergon says that the ergonomic shape of the grip will “automatically put you in an active riding position”.

This is 100% the truth. After installing the grip and going for that first ride, I found my riding position to be more “active” than it would be without the GE1 Evo. I wasn’t even trying, it really was “automatic”.

The grip is made using their unique in-house produced Factory rubber compound. I find that compound to provide a very useful amount of damping, without losing the “feel” of the trail.

The GE1 Evo is also specifically designed for use with wide handlebars, like my 800mm wide PNW LOAM bars. The grips have textured zones that are oriented against the direction that your hands naturally rotate on the grip.

There is an aluminum inboard clamp and built-in handlebar end plugs. This gives the grips a great, high-end fit and finish. The end plugs do not come out, so if you have a quick tool or tire repair kit that fits in the handlebar end, these grips won’t work.

Installing the GE1 Evo

They are right and left-specific, as well as top and bottom-specific. Setting up the grip is easy. Each grip is labeled Right or Left, and has an ‘Up’ graphic printed on the shoulder of the locking collar (it’s harder to see on the oil slick clamps). Match up the left and right grips, and slide the grips over the bar with ‘Up’ pointing… up. Situate yourself in the riding position of choice, and wrap your hands around the grip.

You can rotate the grip slightly until you find that the grip matches the ergonomics of your hand. You can use the hash marks on the collar to make sure both grips are equal. Once this happens, tighten the 3mm screw and you’re done.

Quick GE1 Evo Specs

• New unique in-house produced Factory rubber compound.
• Design to be used on the wide handlebars found on most gravity MTBs.
• Textured zones orientated against the direction of rotation of the hand.
• Lightweight high-quality inboard aluminum clamp.
• Built-in handlebar plug.
• Right and Left specific grips, which are also Top and Bottom specific.
• 135mm length
• 32mm average diameter
• 119 grams for the set
• No removable end plug

Riding with the Ergon GE1 Evo Factory

I received the Ergon GE1 Evo Factory grips in Frozen Stealth (black) with the Oil Slick clamp on the Salsa Blackthorn, and the Frozen Moss (green) with the Oil Slick clamp on the Saguaro 1.

This grip is one of the most noticeable, low-cost upgrades I’ve made to a bicycle. They instantly made a difference in how my hands felt on both short and long rides.

I noticed the grip’s highlights and features on rides with long technical descents, where the terrain requires a tighter grip while using more brakes. The soft compound helps keep the numbness at bay while providing ample damping.

The ergonomics of the grip are subtle, but obvious as it keeps you in a riding position that is ready for action. And while the grip’s compound feels soft, its purposeful shape still feels very defined and precise.

Besides the awesome appearance, vibration damping, and ergonomics of the grip, I think one of my favorite features of the GE1 Evo Factory is the extended outer edge.

I tend to ride with my hands to the outside, and sometimes hanging slightly off of the end of the bar. And these extended end portions of the grip seemed to be made just for me. It gives your hand a nice perch to be on.

The Gripping Conclusion

In my opinion, most grips that boast relief from hand numbness or offer damping, often end up feeling too vague and squishy. This results in a grip that leaves you feeling less in control. The GE1 Evo Factory grips manage to accomplish the real job of offering relief from hand discomfort. Plus they offer great damping that doesn’t leave you feeling disconnected from the trail.

For $40, the Ergon GE1 Evo Factory grip is a low-cost, upgrade for your bike that will yield very noticeable differences in your ride feel and hand comfort. I would highly suggest trying them out. I don’t think you’ll be sorry.

Check them out at the link below.

ErgonBike.shop

The post Get a Grip: Ergon GE1 Evo Factory Grips Convert Another Fan appeared first on Bikerumor.

While the recently revamped ENVE M-Series wheels continue to push the category forward at the high end, many riders are looking for a more affordable option that doesn’t skimp on quality. And that’s where ENVE’s Foundation Series wheels come in, so I tested the AM30 mountain bike wheels to see how they compare.

I’ve been riding the original M5 since they launched and they’ve held up impeccably. The AM30 is a decidedly more trail-to-all-mountain wheel than the XC-oriented M5, but it shares some of the key features and, for now*, come with Industry Nine hubs. (*Their Foundation Road/Gravel wheels now come with ENVE’s InnerDrive hubs, but the AM30 hasn’t made that switch…no word on whether they will)

For comparison, the AM30 wheelset is $1400, while the M6 “trail” wheelset is $2300. So, here’s what happens when you spend $900 less…

Actual weights & widths

The wheels ship bare and weigh in at 858g (front) and 1011g (rear) without rim tape or valve stems. Total is 1869g actual (claimed weight is 1852g).

Add the rim tape and valve stems and they weigh 877g (+19g, front) and 1029g (+18g). That’s 1906g total ready to ride.

Tape and valve stems are included with the wheels, and these are equipped with a Micro Spline freehub body so I could test them with the TRP EVO 12 mountain bike group.

Claimed rim widths are 30mm internal and 39mm external. Mine measured 29.83mm internal and 38.92mm external…well within expected tolerances. Depth is a claimed 20mm.

This is one of the key differences between the AM30 and M-series. These have the same rim front and rear, while the M-series wheels use different profiles and widths front to rear. For example, the M6 measures 32mm front/internal and 29mm rear/internal.

But the AM30 keeps one of ENVE’s best features – the wide bead wall with rounded corners. Using math, they should be 4.5mm wide each, and that’s exactly where mine ended up.

In my opinion, this is why ENVE’s wheels are so good, they’ve nailed a design that virtually eliminates pinch flats. Even when I’ve run intentionally too-low pressures and hit rocks just to test them, I didn’t have issues. Under normal setup and conditions, I’ve been able to rally rough terrain, rocks, and roots without fear. And without incident.

Details

Here’s what that looks like as a profile. Note the little bead seat channels, too, and rounded ramps to bring the tire up from the deeper center for easier tubeless tire installs.

The ultra-shallow rim depth improved compliance, and these wheels are indeed very comfortable without giving up lateral stability or the ability to rail corners.

External nipples are now the norm for both Foundation and M-Series wheels, but they were a new thing for ENVE when this wheelset launched. But, these rims also use molded spoke holes, not drilled, which is a premium touch that’s trickled down.

I also really like the matte finish that still allows some of the carbon’s sheen to come through. It’s subtle, but there.

There’s a reason why a lot of wheel brands spec Industry Nine hubs…they’re fantastic. These I9 1/1 hubs are a proven element, and J-bend spokes are easy to source and replace at almost any bike shop. End caps are tool-free, making them easy to service and clean, too.

ENVE AM30 ride review

I’ve ridden these in Deer Valley, Utah’s steep and flowing trails that (thanks to some local knowledge) weren’t always fully established.

I’ve ridden them at Beech Mountain’s bike park, where lift-served trails range from groomed and bermed to “I can’t believe this many rocks exist in one place!”

And I’ve ridden it in Vermont’s expansive trail network of long climbs, blazing descents, technical trails, and man-made ramps and features:

Everywhere I’ve ridden them the AM30 wheels excelled. ENVE calls them the “one-wheelset quiver for lunch laps, park laps, and backcountry epics”, and I’d agree.

I’ll admit, $1400 is still a lot for a wheelset, but it’s a lot better than $2300. And it finally put ENVE at a competitive price point without watering down the product or adding a ton of weight. These are only 277g heavier than the M6 (claimed weight comparisons), and some of that weight comes from the hubs, so it’s not all out at the rim.

The reason I often ride and recommend ENVE is because I’ve seen how they make their wheels. I’ve ridden them enough to know they hold up to abuse. I appreciate the design thinking that goes into them. And I appreciate that they’re made in the USA (and in this case with US-made hubs, too).

If you’re looking for a bombproof mountain bike wheel that’ll handle almost anything and has a killer pedigree, the ENVE AM30 is worth a look.

ENVE.com

The post Review: ENVE AM30 Foundation Mountain Bike Wheels appeared first on Bikerumor.

One Up Components makes some of my favorite cockpit parts, I’ve been riding their carbon riser bar for years and it’s amazing. Same with their 2nd generation dropper post.

So, when they introduced an alloy version of a handlebar that adds a little flex to soften blows, I was intrigued. And when their 3rd gen dropper promised significant weight savings, I reached out. Here’s how it all came together, starting with actual weights.

One Up Cockpit – Actual Weights (and Details)

Actual weights for the front end are:

• Handlebar: 348g
• Grips: 108g (pair)
• Stem: 155g (claimed, 35mm length)

The new One Up V3 dropper on the left is a 180mm travel post and weighs 484g. That’s compared to the 150mm V2 dropper on the right at 500g.

So, longer travel for less weight…yes, please.

At a glance it’s hard to tell them apart save for graphics and the ridges on the collar. Read our launch coverage for all the tech details, but basically it’s a new, lighter cartridge with fixed air pressure that saves most of the weight.

I tested One Up’s Thin Grips, which are 29mm in diameter and 138mm long. They also make Standard (30mm diameter, but with ridges on the bottom, and Thick Grips (32-35mm diameter). All come in six colors plus Black, and all are $27/pair.

To be honest, I’m not sure why I requested the Thin Grips as I actually like the design of the standard ones better (and the 0.5mm extra cushioning wouldn’t hurt either, but these Thin Grips are great.

They’re grippy even in the wet (I always wear gloves, so no comment on bare handed grip), and perhaps as a testament to the bar’s ability to soak up the bumps, haven’t felt harsh…which is a compliment for thinner grips, I can’t say that about every brand. They’ve also held up well. The only potential knock is the ends are closed, so they’re not compatible with bar-end tools without some cutting.

The handlebar accomplishes its vertical flex by using an ovalized shape at the rise. It’s a bit thinner from the front, and a bit wider from the top.

Having ridden both the carbon and the alloy version, and generally NOT being a fan of how harsh alloy bars are, I’m surprised at how much I like this bar. To be fair, it’s on a 170mm bike with big tires, but it’s still immediately apparent that the bar is doing something to mitigate impacts and fatigue.

If your (or your wallet’s) preference is alloy, One Up’s Aluminum Handlebar is a great option at just $90.

One Up’s Stem comes in 35mm (tested), 42mm, and 50mm lengths, all with 0º rise and only for 35mm handlebars. Bar clamp width is a stout 55mm, which makes it very sturdy but still leaves a little room for computer mounts.

Stems aren’t the most exciting product, but their critical, and this one does what it should without drama. It also looks good, is reasonably light, and will handle everything from trail to freeriding.

Ride Review

I mostly summed up my feelings on the cockpit above. The handlebar is the standout, offering better (any!) compliance than other alloy bars by a large margin. If you feel a little roughed up after longer, more aggressive rides but can’t pinpoint why, swap this (or their carbon) bar in and I bet you’ll like your bike a lot better.

As for the dropper post, it’s great, and it’s worth giving a nod to the V2 version (shown above) because it’s still available and just $185 (compared to $270 for V3). I ran this post for quite a while on some rough stuff, in varying conditions, and it’s still performing well.

But my Fezzari (now Ari) La Sal needed more drop, so the 180mm V3 replaced it (below).

Not only is the One Up V3 post one of the lightest (if not the lightest standard dropper post) on the market, it also comes in an huge range of travel, from 90mm up to 240mm! It can be adjusted by 20mm, and you can drop another 10g with their titanium bolt kit. It’s also super easy to rebuild with basic tools, and all parts are available

As for performance, it’s smooth and actuates easily. While you can’t adjust the return speed anymore, I have no complaints with its speed or reaction. It goes down and up just like I want. The only improvement I’d make is to angle the front saddle rail clamp bolt forward to make it easier to adjust, but that’s an issue with almost every seatpost out there, not just One Up.

One Up makes a great Dropper Post Remote lever, too, which I used here. The post has a standard brake cable attachment point on the bottom, so you can run basically any remote you want that clamps at the lever, but I’m a fan of matchy-matchy components, and One Up’s has the added benefit of a three-position mount that lets me fine-tune how far inboard it is without having to change my brake lever’s position, and that works whether you pair it with its own bar clamp or a Match Maker setup.

Final call? Get it. It’s light, long, and smooth, which is everything I want out of a dropper post.

OneUpComponents.com

The post Review: One Up Cockpit – Bar, Stem, Grips & V3 Dropper appeared first on Bikerumor.