In this article, we use so-called affiliate links. With every purchase through these links, we receive a commission from the merchant. All relevant referral links are marked with . Learn more.
The differences in the test results of our twelve candidates are large, with the grades ranging from "Very good" to "Sufficient". The most important criterion in our test was cleaning power, which showed the greatest differences in effectiveness. Dr Wack, Sonax and Motorex made it onto the podium, with Tunap offering the best value for money, followed by Holmenkol and Sonax.
What is the best way to assess the cleaning performance of a cleaner? With your eyes, of course! You can see when it's clean. Can't you? The disadvantage of evaluating by eye is that, depending on the surface or incidence of light, it is not possible to reliably recognise whether, for example, grease residue is still stuck to the frame tube.
The scales, on the other hand, are unwavering as long as they weigh accurately to the third and fourth decimal places. The differences in residual dirt between the best and worst cleaners in our bike cleaner test are in this range of hundredths and thousandths of a gram, as Franziska Mayer, laboratory specialist at Dr. Wack, was able to determine sample by sample in our test with her precision scales. For example, the best cleaners leave only three to five thousandths of a gram of dirt on the aluminium test strips prepared with standard dirt, while the worst substances leave 15 times more dirt on the carrier material - and this in turn can be seen very clearly with the eye.
A good cleaner differs from a bad one in one important respect: it dissolves even dried, stubborn dirt without the use of a brush or sponge. The differences between the individual surfactant cocktails are considerable, which is clearly demonstrated in the test of the twelve different cleaners. We tested the products in the test laboratory at Dr Wack in Ingolstadt. The exact tests that all the cleaners had to pass several times are shown in the box "How TOUR tests".
As mentioned at the beginning, the cleaning performance criterion in our bike cleaner test is determined with the help of plates prepared with test dirt, which are weighed with an analytical scale after the cleaner has been applied - between two and ten minutes, depending on the manufacturer's instructions - and rinsed with a defined water jet.
One realisation: The contact time is important. If the surfactants cannot act for long enough, they will not develop their dirt-dissolving powers optimally. If, on the other hand, the agent remains on the surface for too long, overly aggressive substances may attack plastics or the paintwork; they can also leave behind unsightly matt surfaces, especially if the foam bath is not carefully rinsed off with clear water. During the practical test, it quickly becomes clear what influence the consistency of the cleaner has on handling and cleaning performance. The rule of thumb is: If the product is too liquid and the spray mist is too fine, the sauce runs down too quickly and can hardly develop its effect. The more viscous, almost gel-like cleaners, such as those from Dr. Wack or Sonax, which adhere well to the dirt, work much better; you can see how they eat away at the film of dirt and the dirt and cleaner then slide off the metal plate almost residue-free.
Afterwards, one rinse under the tap is enough to leave the two cleanest plates in the test sparkling clean. In contrast, the weakest cleaning agents virtually refuse to tackle the dirt. The cleaners from Antidot, Kärcher or Zefal, for example, only removed between two and four thousandths of a gram of test dirt from the carrier strips - that is only a little more than the classic dishwashing detergent that we used as a reference in the bike cleaner test.
Admittedly, those on a budget will always resort to this household remedy for cost reasons, understandably so, given that the most expensive special cleaners, such as those from Atlantic and Motorex, cost a good 30 euros per litre; after all, the latter cleans really well, while Atlantic's product requires a lot of help with a brush and sponge if the racer is to sparkle and shine again. According to our test expert, Hartmut Hauber from Dr Wack Chemie, the so-called organic cleaners do not have to be worse than standard products. There are also good cleaners among these cleaners, as our Test has shown. Bike Clean from Motorex was once again able to prove this as a representative of this species in our bike cleaner test. Conclusion: The winners in this test are really good and recommendable products that can make bike cleaning significantly easier and faster. It's becoming increasingly difficult to make excuses as to why you'll be at the start of the next training session with an uncleaned bike.
All cleaners are biodegradable. However, the products only become sustainable when you look at the big picture.
Since 2005, the Detergents Regulation (DVO; No. 648/2004) has stipulated that all surfactants placed on the market in the EU must be readily biodegradable. For the cleaners in the test, this means that they must be at least 80 per cent primary (they lose their surfactant properties) and at least 60 per cent completely biodegradable within 28 days. The raw materials of the cleaner and spray bottle are decisive for the bio-factor. A renewable, vegetable base and recycled materials are essential. No cleaner is 100 per cent organic. Attributes such as "vegan" or "free from animal testing" are not organic criteria, even if some manufacturers advertise this on their products. A standardised organic seal would create more clarity for cleaners.
If you use refill containers and reuse the existing spray bottle or dilute the cleaner with water as much as possible, you save on chemicals and packaging waste. Many manufacturers also offer their cleaners in bulk containers or as a concentrate to mix yourself, and some can even be refilled at a stationary retailer.
The most important criterion in our bike cleaner test. In order to determine the cleaning performance, we treated a surface with standardised test dirt with the respective cleaner and allowed it to take effect according to the manufacturer's instructions. We then rinsed the cleaner off with running water, dried the test strip and weighed the residual dirt with an analytical scale. The greater the difference to the clean carrier, the better the cleaning performance.
Remove dirt, but leave no residue and protect the material: To test how aggressive the cleaners are on different surfaces, we left them to work for 24 hours on test strips made of iron and aluminium as well as on paint, anodised aluminium and Plexiglas. Corrosion or damage to the respective material led to deductions in the bike cleaner test, depending on the extent.
How comfortable is the bottle in the hand? Can the spray head be operated properly? Does the bottle hold tight? The spray pattern and consistency during application are also included in the assessment. Also important: How economical is the product? An expensive cleaner that can be distributed well with just a few pumps can be more efficient.
The organic factor is not only made up of the raw materials used. The absence of colourants and fragrances also scores points. Here we have to rely on the information provided by the manufacturer. There are also points for labels and containers made from recycled materials as well as the option of reusing existing spray heads and bottles with refill containers.
Antidot impresses with exemplary ecological properties in the bike cleaner test, but hardly dissolves stubborn dirt; the bottle fits well in the hand, but the lever cannot be pulled fully; the cleaner is quite liquid, mists strongly and runs off quickly, which is why it is not so economical.
Environmentally friendly cleaner without colourants and fragrances; low cleaning power, although according to the manufacturer it is also suitable for the chain; compact bottle with good balance; low viscosity, atomises heavily when applied and runs off quickly; not particularly gentle on materials.
Large, bulbous bottle is heavy to hold; with foam attachment, the cleaner adheres well, but hardly dissolves stubborn dirt; without attachment, the cleaner mists with little foaming; gentle on the material and has a good ecological balance.
The bulbous bottle with a low centre of gravity presses slightly on the crook of the thumb over time, otherwise the handling in terms of dosage and spray pattern is very good; dissolves the standard dirt quickly and completely and offers top cleaning performance with the best material compatibility.
Poor handling due to the long bottle with a low centre of gravity in combination with a very angular handle; infinitely adjustable spray nozzle; the cleaner adheres well as a mist and dissolves even tough dirt well within the exposure time; visibly attacks aluminium or polycarbonate, so rinse well.
Environmentally friendly and material-friendly cleaner in a compact bottle, handle fits well in the hand; can be applied accurately thanks to a defined spray pattern, but runs off quickly; the biggest drawback in the bike cleaner test is its poor cleaning performance.
Slim bottle, ergonomic spray head, adjustable nozzle, good spray pattern in the bike cleaner test and good adhesion; the cleaning power is convincing, leaves little residue on aluminium, powder coating and polycarbonate; the bottle is made from recycled material.
Thanks to the compact bottle and ergonomic spray head, the cleaner is particularly impressive in terms of handling; the low-viscosity product can be finely dosed, but runs off quickly; the cleaning effect is average; partly made from renewable raw materials.
Moderate cleaning performance in the bike cleaner test for stubborn dirt, but very gentle on the material; poor quality and angular spray head that presses heavily into the crook of the thumb when the bottle is full; the nozzle drips in foam mode, the spray mist is difficult to dose and not very well dosed.
One of the few cleaners in the bike cleaner test that has its strengths in dissolving grease and is very gentle on the material; the slim bottle supports the good handling thanks to the ergonomic handle; the gel-like agent can be dosed well, but does not always hit the dirt accurately.
The bottle and handle are identical in construction to Holmenkol and just as bulky. Otherwise, the product impresses with good cleaning values and a largely material-friendly effect.
Thanks to refill packs, it is inexpensive in the long term and causes correspondingly little waste; the cleaner is relatively liquid, runs off quickly and the nozzle drips; hardly dissolves the test dirt, and is also not very gentle on the material.
Even stubborn dirt nests can be cleaned with a set of brushes. Our top three: the Dynamic Soft Washing Brush with soft, long bristles for large surfaces. For wheels and tyres, the Detailing Brush from Muc-Off proven, and the flexible Fine brush from Peatys gently cleans hard-to-reach areas such as hubs or spoke gaps.
The wash mitt is a practical alternative to the sponge, allowing you to reach every little corner of the racer. Our favourite is the model from Dr. Wack for 15 euros >> e.g. available here.
Not everyone has a water connection at their washing area. A bucket with lukewarm soapy water is therefore ideal for adding water or cleaning the brushes in between. Construction buckets with handles are robust and available at any DIY store.
A fluffy high-pile cloth is ideal for "wiping down" the racer after washing. It prevents water stains and protects the paintwork. Sonax, for example, offers the microfibre cloth in the Double pack for nine euros.

Editor