Race bikes are at a crossroads: Why are new rigs split between subtle updates or major overhauls?

Cor Vos, Escape staff

Canyon’s current Aeroad, Merida's new Reacto, Giant’s freshly launched Propel, Cannondale’s updated SuperSix and Cervelo’s S5 all have one thing in common: They are all practically indistinguishable from their predecessors. Those are just a few from a long list of new bikes that, at first glance, look almost identical to the bikes they replace.

Giant’s new Propel raises an awkward question: What is the TCR for now?Dipping below 6.8 kg and with a claimed 18-watt savings, the latest Propel and EnviLiv edge into all-rounder territory.Escape CollectiveRonan Mc Laughlin

The latest Giant Propel is the most recent and perhaps clearest example. I recently travelled to the press launch for that bike, and while I was anticipating a conservative update from Giant, I wasn’t expecting how subtle the updates would be with most of the changes focused not on the frame itself but on wheels and handlebars. The frame and geometry on the other hand are practically identical to the outgoing Gen 3.

That launch and several other recent ones raise the question of whether we have reached peak aero. Are frames as fast as they can get, and so going forward all we should expect are minor tweaks and subtle updates?

But a small number of brands are pushing back on that, developing new bikes at the opposite end of the scale with divisive, progressive, and – for lack of a better term – radical concepts. Factor’s new One, Ridley’s latest Noah, Dare’s VA-AFO all offer a comprehensive rethink of what a modern aero road bike should offer, prioritising both new geometries and bold aerodynamic profiles.

So between the brands that appear to believe the aero potential of the frame itself is largely realised – with further refinement mostly focused on other components and rider position – and those that believe there are still meaningful frame-based gains to be had, who is right, if anyone? Are imperceptible updates all we can expect going forward as brands approach a global optimal for race bikes? Or are we merely scratching the surface of performance potential?

The performance bike arms race may be entering a new phase – one where the biggest question is no longer how to make bikes faster, but 1) whether we still can and 2) how much risk brands are willing to take in trying to do so.

The incremental path

Consider the difference between one of Eddy Merckx’s Tour de France-winning bikes and a modern aero road bike. With the eradication of round frame tubes and box-section, high-spoke count wheels (not to mention exposed cables, wide handlebars, etc.), there’s no doubt we’ve already picked most of the low-hanging aero fruit. Specifically on the frame, there is an argument that all that remains are marginal, incremental, and iterative aero savings.

The easy fruit is already picked.

If we imagine all the aerodynamic gains available between those two points and assume, for argument’s sake, that today’s bikes have already captured 95% of them, then that original 95% represented relatively accessible progress once carbon fibre arrived. The final 5%, if the 95:5 rule holds, may require 95% of the effort.

This post is for subscribers only

Become a member to get access to all content

Subscribe now