Pursuit group: 6 competition bikes under 7000 euros on test
The competition road bikes under 7000 euros in the test
Due to its size, we have divided the test field into three articles, sorted alphabetically. You can find these models in this article:
One of the little absurdities of the road bike market is that the manufacturers' flagship models, as ridden by prominent professionals, cost an almost outrageous amount of money compared to their cheaper counterparts. If you look at the individual prices of the components, the question often arises as to how the often five-figure sums for the top models come about in the first place. Want an example? You can see one in the picture below. The Canyon Aeroad costs 10,499 euros in its most expensive version, as ridden by superstar Matthieu van der Poel, among others. This makes it one of the more affordable bikes in the elite class. The bike shown here is priced at 6499 euros, which is almost 40 per cent cheaper. For the uninitiated, the only difference between the bike and the workhorse of the three-time Paris-Roubaix winner is the colour. Connoisseurs of the subject will at least notice that the Shimano Ultegra is a cheaper groupset and that the wheels are from a different manufacturer. However, even if we take the official recommended retail prices of the different components as a basis, the difference between the two models should be no more than half. In this case, the manufacturer argues that the frame of the top model is made of better quality material. But is "better" carbon really worth the hefty surcharge? One of the questions in this test is whether there are hidden differences in performance compared to the professional material and, if so, how big they are.
We have specifically invited aerodynamically optimised race models from the "second series", which are equipped with the latest, competition-ready technology, i.e. electronic gears and fast carbon rims. In this way, we try to come as close as possible to the performance of professional bikes - and save a lot of money in the process. The fact that we had to raise the price limit to 7,000 euros is a sad side of the price trend in general and for racing bikes in particular. The attribute "affordable" is difficult for us to get across the keyboard. However, our test last year (TOUR 5/2024), which attempted to gather competitive race models for around €5000, delivered a bitter realisation: the selection is too small and the technical compromises too great, at least for the vast majority of suppliers. Unfortunately, bike racing has become an expensive sport, even for amateurs and hobby racers.
Even at the 7000 euro limit, some manufacturers still fall outside the upper limit, for example the Italian luxury brands Colnago and Pinarello. The prominent US brands Specialized and Cannondale declined our invitation, presumably because they don't see themselves as competitive with their €7000 racers. The Ultegra versions of the Cannondale SuperSix Evo and the Specialized Tarmac SL8, which are equipped with fast carbon rims and integrated handlebars similar to the professional racers and therefore only require minimal compromises to the performance of the top models, cost €9000 each. The aerodynamically optimised S5 from Cervélo, which is also not included, costs a five-figure sum with a comparable design.
Despite these cancellations, the response was unexpectedly high: 17 manufacturers wanted to take part in the comparison. This makes this test at TOUR the biggest of the year - and by far the most elaborate worldwide. That's because we didn't just ride every bike on the road to get an impression in the comparison. In the TOUR laboratory, we measured weights, frame stiffness and comfort values. The aerodynamic potential of the bikes was analysed in the wind tunnel. These measured values allow us an unbiased view of the respective strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and complement the riding impression. In order to give the test enough time and the many bikes from Benotti to Wilier adequate space, we have therefore spread the peloton over three issues.
Shimano Only
The fact that only Shimano's electronic Ultegra Di2 groupset is represented in the test field is more by chance than design. For one thing, competitor SRAM is nowhere near as strongly represented here as in the high-end segment, where the US company has recently been able to gain more and more market share. The Force AXS, SRAM's price equivalent to Ultegra, is only available on a minority of bikes. On the other hand, manufacturers who have both to choose from prefer to send the Shimano version. One reason could be that the Force groupset is due for a facelift in the short term, after the top Red ensemble has already benefited from extensive technical innovations. If the Force makes a comparable technical leap, the range could look more mixed again in the next model year and Shimano could come under pressure. Campagnolo components are nowhere to be found outside the luxury segment these days.
However, the Ultegra proves to be a good choice to contribute to the claim of "professional technology on a budget". The most recent renovation, which also benefited the Dura-Ace at the same time, has made a decisive contribution to the popularity of the component ensemble. Since then, Ultegra has come so close to Dura-Ace in terms of technology that there are hardly any arguments for paying twice the price for the top-of-the-range groupset. Essential Ultegra parts such as gears, cranks and brakes hardly differ technically or visually from their Dura-Ace counterparts. The components shift and brake just as well as high-end material. The concession to the price lies mainly in the weight; the ensemble is a good 200 grams heavier than the Dura-Ace or Red. A shortcoming that you can certainly cope with in view of the pricing of the complete range.
The main thing: wheels
Firstly, the riding impression: it's better across the board than last year, which is clearly due to the components fitted. While Shimano's 105 groupsets and simple, comparatively heavy carbon wheels, sometimes fitted with inexpensive tyres, were still predominantly used in the €5,000 price range, the higher quality parts have a positive effect on the handling. The bikes weigh around a pound less on average, the lightest - Benotti and Canyon - are not far off the level of most professional bikes at just over seven kilos. Some manufacturers make differences in the frames and reserve the most expensive carbon fibres and production methods for their top models. For example, the frame of the Canyon Aeroad CF SLX mentioned at the beginning is around 100 grams heavier than the more exclusive CFR version, which is only available with the top groupsets from around € 10,000. In reality, however, the effect is negligible.
Benotti in particular shows how strongly the wheels, on the other hand, characterise a racer. The impressive aero rims with carbon spokes clearly set themselves apart from the other participants in terms of weight. But you can also see from the other wheels that the lighter rims are better suited to the steering geometries of the racers than heavy, sluggish specimens. In most cases, the difference in weight of the wheels compared to the top class is only minimal. A negative example is the Bianchi, whose wheelset (including tyres) is 600 grams heavier than that of the Benotti. The racer steers and accelerates sluggishly; the very simple Pirelli tyre also falls noticeably behind the competition, which is all on tubeless-compatible top rubber, in terms of rolling behaviour. Nevertheless, tyre tuning is easy, even if it costs extra money. In this test group at least, it only makes economic sense to do so on the model from the traditional Italian tyre manufacturer.
Air knows no price tag
We were particularly excited about the test in the wind tunnel. Are there aerodynamic differences that justify buying wheels that are twice as expensive? We wouldn't expect it, because the wind doesn't really care whether it flows around a Dura-Ace or Ultegra crank or hits a more or less heavy front wheel. Experience also shows that good aerodynamics only have a limited effect on the price and that top performance is realistic. After all, even last year some bikes costing less than 5000 euros delivered an aerodynamic level that was at least on a par with the most expensive race bikes and that many a World Tour pro could only dream of: Canyon and Storck, for example, both achieved top marks. The prerequisites for this are an aerodynamically good frameset, possibly with a streamlined handlebar combo, and equally good wheels. This test also confirms this without reservation. Of the test bikes in the first episode of our test trilogy, Canyon and Cube deliver first-class performances in this discipline that are in no way inferior to the professional bikes. A comparison with fast reference wheels also shows that the aerodynamic potential of the bikes in this price category can be considered exhausted: A change of wheel no longer brings the candidates significantly forwards, the Bianchi the most, but only by a mere three watts.
Conditionally suitable for touring
There are also no significant disadvantages in terms of comfort, although the racing bikes are naturally not sedan chairs. The Benotti is particularly firm. The winner of this evaluation in this first group is the Focus, which filters bad roads the most tolerably. However, even this bike does not come close to the level of special marathon models; the bikes feel most comfortable on well-paved roads. The racers are only suitable as companions for long tours to a limited extent anyway, as you don't just have to cope with a firm chassis and an emphatically sporty, stretched seating position. With the exception of the Bianchi, only racing cranks with the 52/36 chainring combination are fitted, which also allow fast sprints in the amateur class. At least in combination with the standard 11-30 cassette, these gears are likely to set limits on longer climbs. The wide-spread 11-34 mountain cassette, only standard on Benotti and Corratec, can alleviate this somewhat. For alpine marathons, however, even smaller gear ratios are required.
The overall assessment shows that a price tag and the logo on the groupset do not say too much about the technical quality of a racer. Half of the road bikes in this test group earned an A in front of the decimal point in the TOUR evaluation, which some bikes twice as expensive fail to achieve. Not to get too carried away: Of course, there is no (price) advantage without a catch. The differences between the bikes in this price range are comparatively large, and not all models with Ultegra have consistently good components. On the other hand, many models are specified to be race-ready or even worthy of a top model, and the concession can be reduced to a small additional weight. Canyon and Cube are particularly impressive, as their final scores are within a tenth of those of the models ridden by the pros in the Tour de France - down to the width of the tyres, so to speak. The Aeroad CFR by Matthieu van der Poel is one of the best professional racing bikes that we have ever tested at TOUR. And the Litening Aero C:68X from Biniam Girmay is one of the cheapest: at 7299 euros in pro trim with Dura-Ace, it almost slipped into this test group. Despite all the displeasure that the price spiral has not yet reached its end, this test also delivers good news. And to anticipate this: The models in the coming issues will hold even more such surprises in store.
The test results at a glance
The sub-scores from 4.0 are in red, so you can see which bikes are out of the question for you due to weaker individual scores.
- *LL = for life
- CR = Crash Replacement Percentage of the overall grade
- RA = Race exclusion
How TOUR tests
Weight (25 per cent of the overall grade): The weighed complete wheel weight in the standardised test wheel size of 56-57 centimetres counts for the evaluation. However, we also show the wheel weights for orientation purposes. The grading scale is designed so that the physical effect of weight and aerodynamics on the average speed is comparable for an average route profile of 1,000 metres in altitude per 100 kilometres. For orientation: the aerodynamic optimisation of the bike can compensate for up to almost four kilograms of weight on such a route. Simultaneous top marks in weight AND aerodynamics are mutually exclusive, but there are racing bikes that find a very good compromise. If the route is more hilly than our reference route, weight becomes more important; if the route is flatter, aerodynamics become more important.
Air resistance (25 per cent of the total score): Dynamically measured in the wind tunnel, with TOUR dummy, rotating wheels, moving legs and over a wide range of flow angles. Summarised to an aerodynamic grade for typical environmental conditions.
Front stiffness (10 per cent of the total score): Important parameter for steering precision and confidence in the bike at high speeds, determined in the TOUR laboratory. The overall stiffness is determined on the fully assembled frame set, i.e. including the fork. The stiffness values are capped. The aim is not an infinitely stiff frame, but one that is sufficiently stable to ride.
Bottom bracket stiffness (10 per cent of the total score): Reveals how much the frame yields under hard pedalling, for example when sprinting. This measurement also takes place in the TOUR laboratory, with realistic clamping, in which the frame can deform as it would when riding.
Rear comfort (10 per cent of the overall score): A measure of compliance under road shocks, measured in the TOUR laboratory. A suspension travel is measured when the seatpost is loaded. The measured value correlates very well with the riding impressions and the feeling of comfort. Good marks also mean decent riding dynamics, which have a positive effect on speed on poor roads.
Comfort front (5 per cent of the overall score): The deformation of the handlebars under load is determined in the same way as for the rear. A good score means a lot of suspension comfort, which takes the strain off your hands on long rides. However, strong sprinters who want a lot of stiffness should look for stiff handlebars.
Switching (5 per cent of the total score): The shifting characteristics are determined in the driving test. It is not the price or the quality impression of individual components that is assessed, but exclusively the function of the entire gearbox. For example, the cable routing, the quality of the cables and the mounted chain also play a role.
Brakes (5 per cent of the overall score): As with shifting, the test on the road also counts here, and the experience from our countless tests of brakes is also incorporated into the assessment. It is not the component itself that is assessed, but the function of the interaction between the brake body, pads and discs: How well can the brakes be modulated? How durable are the brakes, how long are the braking distances?
tyres (5 percent of the overall score): Rolling resistance and grip are assessed - if known from one of our independent tyre tests or based on driving impressions. The overall score is calculated arithmetically from the differently weighted individual scores (percentages in brackets). It primarily expresses the sporty qualities of the tyre.
The overall score is calculated arithmetically from the individual scores weighted differently (percentages in brackets). It primarily expresses the sporting qualities of the bike.
Jens Klötzer
Editor
