Bike Review: Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX – Fast and Forgiving

1. Intro & Test Context

I’ve ridden the Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX on numerous long rides in the Black Forest and Kaiserstuhl region, with Freiburg as my home base. These test rides typically cover ~120 km with about 1,800 m of climbing – a mix of sustained climbs (like the Schauinsland or Texaspass), rolling terrain, and fast flats. I’m a heavier rider, so having low gearing is important for me on steep climbs. The Cube came with its standard SRAM Red eTap AXS drivetrain (a 2×12 setup with a 48/35T crankset and 10–33T cassette) and I ran it with 30 mm Schwalbe Pro One tires set up tubeless (the stock setup is 28 mm tubeless, but 30 mm fit fine). On my Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8 Di2 (which I reviewed previously), I use a Shimano Ultegra Di2 groupset with a 52/36 chainset and an 11–36 cassette. That 1:1 gearing (36×36) isn’t officially supported by Shimano, but it works flawlessly and gives me an even easier gear for big climbs. In comparison, the Cube’s lowest gear (35×33) was just about sufficient on the steepest Black Forest gradients – I missed the extra cushion of the 36T cog only on the toughest pitches. Both bikes were tested with high-volume tires (30–32 mm) to help smooth out the rough forest roads.

2. Ride Feel & Handling

From the first kilometers on the Cube Litening, it’s clear that this bike is built for speed, yet it doesn’t feel as punishing as some pure race bikes. The front end is stiff and responsive, but not overly twitchy. Steering inputs translate accurately, giving me confident control through fast corners. In fact, the handling is both agile and predictable, which makes it easy to settle into the bike’s behavior even on technical hairpins. On a twisty descent, I found the Litening almost intuitive – I could pick a line and the bike would track it without protest. It reacts quickly to rider input, but it won’t catch you off guard; in other words, it strikes a nice balance between quick responsiveness and stability.

That said, the Canyon Aeroad still feels a notch more aggressive. The Aeroad’s front end is razor-sharp and extremely direct – every slight handlebar movement has an immediate effect. Coming off the Aeroad onto the Cube, the Litening feels just a touch more relaxed in handling. I actually appreciate this on long rides: the Cube doesn’t demand as much constant attention to keep it tracking straight. The Aeroad is like a scalpel, whereas the Litening is more forgiving if you’re not “on it” 100% of the time. I suspect the frame size difference plays a role here as well. My Aeroad is a size Medium, while the Cube is a 58 (Large) – and generally, a smaller frame with tighter triangles will be stiffer and more directly responsive than a larger one. The Cube’s larger frame adds a hint of compliance and calmness to the ride, whereas the Canyon’s compact frame heightens the feeling of raw speed and precision.

Both bikes are undeniably fast on flat roads. Once up to speed, the Aeroad and Litening alike hold their pace effortlessly thanks to their aerodynamic tube shapes and deep-section wheels. The Cube’s Mavic Cosmic wheels (45 mm deep) slice through the wind effectively, and I found that if I put out the same power on a flat stretch, the Cube would glide along every bit as quickly as the Canyon. Where the Aeroad holds an edge is in acceleration from low speed – it seems to leap forward with a bit more urgency, likely due to its very stiff frame and slightly lower weight. The Litening is no slouch, though; it responds promptly when you sprint, just with a tad less snap. Frankly, the difference isn’t huge, and it might even come down to the Canyon’s smaller frame and setup. Once up to 40 km/h in a group ride, the Litening’s stable handling actually made it easier for me to stay relaxed and maintain speed, whereas the Canyon always encourages an aggressive, head-down posture. In summary, the Cube offers a more approachable ride feel – it’s still a race bike at heart, but it doesn’t demand perfect inputs or pristine tarmac to deliver a confident ride.

3. Climbing Performance

Climbing on the Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX turned out to be better than I expected for a dedicated aero road bike. At 7.6 kg (size 58, with pedals), the Cube is reasonably light for an aero machine, and you feel that on the ascents. On long, steady climbs like Gießhübel or the Kandel, the bike never felt like dead weight. Each pedal stroke still translated into forward motion without much energy loss. The frame is very stiff laterally, so when I got out of the saddle to surge, there was no perceptible bottom bracket flex – all my effort went into driving the bike upward. In a seated climb, the Cube holds momentum nicely; it doesn’t have that dancing-on-the-pedals liveliness of a superlight climbing bike, but it grinds efficiently and maintains speed in a “diesel engine” kind of way.

Compared to the Canyon Aeroad, the Cube’s climbing style is a bit more easy-going. The Aeroad also climbs impressively fast (it shocked me how well a pure aero bike can climb when I first rode it), but the Canyon encourages a more aggressive approach – maybe standing and attacking the hill – whereas the Cube feels content if I stay seated and spin. Part of this is gearing: the Cube’s lowest gear of 35×33 was adequate for climbs up to ~10% grades. On really steep ramps above 12%, I found myself wishing for a 36×36 like on the Canyon, just to keep a higher cadence. Still, I was able to clear all the local climbs on the Cube without resorting to grinding at ultra-low cadences, thanks to the wide-range SRAM cassette and smaller chainring combo. The Cube’s slightly more forgiving geometry also helped on switchbacks – I didn’t have to wrestle the bike as much as I sometimes do with the Canyon. The front wheel stayed planted and steering through tight uphill hairpins felt natural. In contrast, the Aeroad, with its very aggressive front end, can feel a tad unyielding on really tight uphill turns (it’s optimized for high-speed stability over nimble hairpin handling). All things considered, the Litening is a great climber for an aero bike: it’s not the quickest off the line, but keep a steady tempo and it will carry you up long climbs without drama or undue fatigue.

4. Descending & High-Speed Stability

When it comes to descending, the Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX is an absolute blast. On fast downhill stretches – for example, the sweeping descent from St. Märgen or the curvy vineyard roads in Kaiserstuhl – the Litening feels rock-solid and planted. I was immediately comfortable pushing this bike at speed. The handling is predictable and confidence-inspiring even through tight hairpins. The bike tracks through corners like it’s on rails, and I found myself trusting it more and more with each turn. There’s no nervous twitchiness, just a very composed feeling that lets you lean in and carve lines. This intuitive high-speed behavior meant there was practically no adjustment period; from the first descent, I felt at home on the Cube.

Stability is a strong point of the Litening. The bike has a fairly long wheelbase and of course an aero frame shape, which tends to favor straight-line stability. At 60+ km/h, I noticed that the Cube remained calm and steady, comparable to how the Canyon Aeroad performs. In fact, both bikes shine when the speeds are high – neither shows any hint of wobble or shimmy, and I could confidently let off the brakes and let them run. The Aeroad might have a tiny advantage in absolute stability thanks to its ultra-stiff chassis (it’s known for feeling like it’s on rails in descents, as I noted in my Aeroad review). But the difference is small; the Cube never gave me a moment of doubt, even when I hit rough patches or crosswinds. On one windy day, I took the Cube down a descent with some strong cross-breezes and open sections. With its deep-profile wheels (45 mm), a sudden gust could be felt, but the bike remained manageable and easy to control – it didn’t yank me off my line. Cube’s choice to spec a slightly shallower front wheel than rear (if I recall, the front is ~45 mm and some models even use 50/65 mm front/back) likely helps keep handling in crosswinds balanced. I was impressed that I could confidently bomb down hills on the Litening just as hard as on the Canyon. The powerful SRAM Red disc brakes (with 160 mm rotors front and rear) also deserve credit here – they provided consistent, fade-free stopping power, letting me brake later into corners without anxiety. Overall, the Cube’s descending performance is top-notch: it’s fast, composed, and gives the rider a lot of confidence to push limits on big mountain descents.

5. Comfort Over Long Rides

One area where the Cube Litening SLX really differentiates itself from the Canyon Aeroad is ride comfort. Simply put, the Cube is more forgiving on rough roads. After 3-4 hours on mixed pavement, I felt noticeably less beaten up on the Litening than I typically do on the Aeroad. Cube built some comfort features into this bike – for example, the Comfort Flex seatpost and a bit of compliance in the frame design – and it does take the edge off jarring bumps. Don’t get me wrong: this is still an aero race bike with a very stiff carbon layup, so you will feel the road. But the high-frequency buzz and minor bumps are muted more effectively. On moderately rough asphalt, especially when I rode in the drops, the Cube delivered a smooth ride. It’s when you hit really broken, patchy tarmac or potholes that you remember you’re on a race-oriented machine – the bike will transmit the bigger jolts to your hands and backside, although even then, it’s a degree or two softer than the Canyon.

By comparison, the Canyon Aeroad is quite harsh over rough surfaces (even with 32 mm tires) – comfort is not that bike’s strong suit. On the Aeroad, after a 120 km ride with a lot of chipseal and cracked roads, my hands and lower back feel more fatigued. With the Cube, I finish the same route feeling fresher. I suspect the slightly taller head tube and generally less extreme geometry of the Litening give it a bit more vertical compliance (the Gran Fondo reviewers noted the Litening has a relatively relaxed riding position for an aero bike, which contributes to better comfort over long rides). The tubeless 30 mm tires I used on the Cube also helped – I could run lower pressure (~5 bar / 72 psi) which added plushness and grip. In contrast, on the Canyon I was using 32 mm tires but with tubes I kept around 5.5–6 bar, losing a bit of comfort and rolling resistance advantage. Another factor is the cockpit: the Cube’s integrated handlebar is aero-shaped (flat tops) which is less comfortable to hold on bumpy roads, but I found that if I stayed in the drops or on the hoods, it was fine. The Canyon’s cockpit was adjustable in width but very stiff; it transmitted every vibration directly to my palms. Cube’s bar isn’t much softer (those wing-shaped tops don’t flex and aren’t the most ergonomic), yet the overall slightly smoother ride of the frame still makes long rides more pleasant. After 4+ hours, I can definitely say I’d rather be on the Cube than the Canyon in terms of comfort. The Aeroad gives you speed at the cost of comfort, whereas the Litening finds a more palatable middle ground between performance and endurance. This makes the Cube a better choice if your typical rides are long and the road surfaces aren’t perfect.

6. Technical Setup & Component Notes

• Drivetrain: The Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX comes equipped with a full SRAM Red eTap AXS groupset. Shifting is wireless and instant, with 12 speeds on the rear (10–33T cassette) and a 2x front (48/35T carbon crankset). In practice, the electronic shifting was flawless throughout my test – I never missed a shift, and gear changes were crisp even under load on steep climbs. The gear range is quite generous for a race bike; the 48×10 top gear is actually slightly taller (harder) than a traditional 52×11, which was great on fast descents, and the 35×33 low gear was sufficient for most climbs. For context, my Canyon’s Shimano Ultegra Di2 drivetrain (with 52/36 and custom 11–36) offered a marginally lower granny gear but a fractionally lower top gear. Both setups cover a wide range, but if you’re a very heavy rider or tackling alpine gradients often, you might prefer the option of a 36T cog on Shimano. On the flip side, the SRAM 12-speed cassette gives you smaller jumps between gears in the mid-range, which I appreciated for maintaining cadence on rolling terrain.

• Wheels & Tires: Cube chose a Mavic Cosmic SLR 45 Carbon wheelset for this model. These wheels have a mid-deep profile (~45 mm) that balances aero gains with manageable handling in crosswinds. They spin up reasonably fast (though not as lightning-quick as the shallower wheels on some climbing bikes), and once at speed they feel very efficient. The freehub engagement is quick and the wheels remained true despite some pothole hits. I tested the bike with Schwalbe Pro One tires – 30 mm width, set up tubeless. The stock spec is 28 mm tubeless tires, but I opted for 30 mm for a bit more cushioning. The tubeless setup with 30s worked great: I could run lower pressure for comfort and grip, and I had zero flats during the test. Rolling resistance felt low, and the extra rubber definitely helped the Cube’s ride quality. (On the Canyon I ran 32 mm Schwalbe Pro One with tubes; interestingly, the Cube with tubeless 30s felt just as smooth, if not more so, than the Canyon with tubed 32s.) Both the Cube and Canyon hold speed extremely well thanks to their aero wheels – on flat stretches I could maintain >35 km/h with relatively little effort, and drafting behind faster riders was almost effortless on the Cube.

• Cockpit & Fit: The Litening SLX uses an integrated ICR Aero cockpit – a one-piece carbon bar/stem with full internal cable routing. It’s a very sleek setup; cables are completely hidden, and it gives the bike a pro-level look. My test bike’s bar was 420 mm wide with a moderate reach and drop. I found the hoods (SRAM’s ergonomic shifters) comfortable to hold for hours, but the wing-shaped top section of the bar is a bit wide and flat, which isn’t the best for my hands on long climbs. There’s not much give in that bar either – it’s built for aero efficiency, not flex. The position on the Cube was slightly more upright than on my Aeroad, likely due to a taller head tube on the Cube (plus I left a spacer or two under the stem). This aligned with Cube’s design goal of a race bike that doesn’t force you into an extreme low tuck by default. I actually liked this aspect: I could ride in a comfortable posture for long periods, but if I wanted to get more aero, I could just slide into the drops. The integrated cockpit has limited adjustability – you can’t easily change the stem length or bar width – which is something to keep in mind (this is a common trade-off; many high-end aero bikes have proprietary cockpits that restrict adjustments). Fortunately, the size 58 fit me well out of the box. One neat touch: the cockpit includes a mount interface for Garmin/Wahoo, which was handy for attaching my GPS computer securely.

• Brakes: Braking is handled by SRAM Red HRD hydraulic disc brakes with 160 mm rotors front and rear. The braking performance was excellent. There’s heaps of power – I could modulate my speed on steep descents with one-finger pressure, and do full stops without any fade or squeal. The feel at the lever is a bit different from Shimano brakes: SRAM’s lever throw is slightly longer and the initial bite is a touch softer, but then it ramps up quickly. Once you get used to it, you can be very precise with your braking. I did a back-to-back comparison with the Canyon’s Ultegra brakes, and I’d say Shimano has a more immediate bite, whereas SRAM offers a tad more progression in the pull. Both are superb, and in wet conditions both systems provided strong, confidence-inspiring braking. The key point is that having proper hydraulic discs on these bikes lets you descend harder and brake later, which I definitely took advantage of on fast rides. Also worth noting: the Cube’s rotors and pads stayed quiet (no rotor rub or screeching) after the initial bed-in. Maintenance-wise, I didn’t have to do anything other than a quick pad check – everything was dialed in from the start.

• Other Components: The Cube comes with a “Natural Fit Nuance SLT” carbon-railed saddle. Saddle comfort is personal, but I got along with it fine – it’s lightweight and had a shape similar to a Fizik Arione (narrow and long). The seatpost, as mentioned, is Cube’s aero carbon post with some built-in flex for comfort. It’s easy to adjust with two bolts at the top, and it stayed in place with no slipping. The Aeroad’s seatpost is also aero but I find the Cube’s provided a bit more dampening (maybe the Canyon’s post is stiffer or the frame transmits more vibration). All the remaining bits (bottom bracket, headset, etc.) performed without issue; there were no creaks or loose parts during the test. The overall build quality on this €7k bike is on par with other flagship bikes – everything feels polished and well-engineered. One thing I’ll call out is that the Cube doesn’t have an easily accessible DI2/AWS junction or port (since it’s SRAM wireless, it doesn’t need one). This made the cockpit super clean. On the Canyon, the Di2 junction box is tucked in the frame but I remember cable routing was a bit fiddly. With the Cube’s fully wireless shifting and integrated cockpit, the front end looked extra tidy. It’s a small aesthetic thing, but I really enjoyed the look of no cables and no extra boxes. It’s worth mentioning that this bike, like many high-end aero bikes, has a max system weight of 115 kg (rider + gear), which was fine for me but larger riders should note the limit. Overall, the component spec on the Litening SLX is top-tier – you’re not left wanting for anything, and it’s race-ready out of the box.

7. Comparison with the Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8 Di2

Having spent a lot of miles on both the Cube Litening AERO SLX and the Canyon Aeroad, I can highlight where each bike shines and how they differ. Both are high-performance aero road bikes, but they have distinct personalities:

Ride Character: The Canyon Aeroad is the more aggressive, race-tuned machine. It feels extremely taut and reactive – a bike that urges you to push harder. In contrast, the Cube Litening has a slightly friendlier demeanor. It’s still very fast (make no mistake, this is a thoroughbred race bike too), but it doesn’t punish you for riding at less than full gas. The Aeroad rewards a strong rider who is actively throwing it into corners and hammering on the pedals; it “comes alive” at high intensity. The Cube is a bit more forgiving and stable, which makes it easier to manage over a long day or when you’re a bit fatigued. I’d say the Aeroad is akin to a precision scalpel or even a Formula One car – ultra-sharp, stiff, and demanding – whereas the Litening is more like a high-end sports car you can drive every day, still blisteringly fast but more accommodating. Both bikes hold high speeds exceptionally well (aero is aero), and both corner with authority, but the Canyon is marginally sharper in turn-in in exchange for being harsher over bumps. The Cube’s slight compliance means when you hit rough patches mid-corner or mid-ride, it won’t jar you as much, allowing you to maintain confidence and form.

Comfort & Fit: As noted earlier, the Cube offers a more comfortable ride over imperfect roads and a less extreme riding position out-of-the-box. The Canyon has a lower frontend (more aggressive fit) and a stiffer feel, which can lead to more fatigue on long rides. After 4 hours, I’m definitely less tired and sore on the Litening than on the Aeroad So if your riding involves a lot of centuries, marathon rides, or just bumpy pavement, the Cube has an advantage. That’s not to say the Aeroad is unbearable – it’s just more focused on pure performance, whereas the Cube sprinkles in a dose of endurance DNA. Interestingly, the frame size difference between my test bikes likely contributed to this: the Aeroad in size M versus the Litening in size 58. A smaller frame (Canyon) is inherently stiffer and transfers more vibration directly, while a larger frame (Cube) can flex a bit more. The net result matched what I felt: the Canyon is a taut, compact rocket; the Cube is a slightly larger platform that introduces a touch of smoothness.

Climbing & Descending: On climbs, neither of these aero bikes will out-climb a dedicated lightweight bike, but they both hold their own. The Canyon, being a hair more rigid, responds well to out-of-saddle efforts – it almost leaps when you stand and sprint uphill. The Cube, on the other hand, seems optimized for seated, steady climbing. I could keep a high cadence and “diesel” my way up, and the bike felt efficient and composed. Its slightly higher weight (by maybe 100-200 grams) was not really noticeable; what I did notice was the Cube’s calmer handling making it easier to settle into a rhythm on long climbs. On descents, as described, both are fantastic. The Aeroad maybe feels locked in at crazy speeds (it’s one of the most stable descenders I’ve ridden), whereas the Cube is only a tiny bit behind and arguably easier in quick transitions. Unless you’re pushing the absolute limit, both bikes inspire huge confidence downhill.

Groupset – SRAM Red vs. Shimano Ultegra Di2: One big difference between these two setups is the choice of electronic drivetrain, and it’s worth a brief mention. The Cube’s SRAM Red eTap AXS and the Canyon’s Shimano Ultegra Di2 are both 12-speed electronic systems, but they have different characteristics. In terms of shifting performance, I found both to be superb – shifts were precise and reliable on both bikes. However, the user experience differs: SRAM’s eTap uses a unique one-lever-per-side shifting logic (left paddle for easier, right for harder, both together to shift the front) which I found very intuitive after a short adjustment period. Shimano’s Di2, by contrast, follows the traditional dual-button setup on each lever (much like mechanical Shimano), which feels immediately familiar if you’ve used Shimano before. Shift speed is essentially instantaneous on both, though if I’m nitpicking, the Ultegra Di2 felt just a hair quicker and quieter when dropping gears under power – likely because Di2 doesn’t have to interpret whether you’re pressing one or two buttons (AXS has that tiny split-second check for a double-click). The difference is very slight; in real riding it’s not something that affected my performance, more a subtle feel (Di2 is a touch more “buttery”, Red is a touch more “crisp/mechanical”).

Another difference is the brake/shift lever ergonomics and braking feel. The SRAM Red levers are a bit thicker in the hand and have textured hood rubber – I actually liked them, and for my hands they were comfortable over long rides. The Ultegra hoods are slightly slimmer and perhaps fit small hands better, with a very distinct separation between the two shift buttons (great for tactile feedback, though with thick gloves on, Shimano buttons can be harder to feel individually). Braking-wise, as mentioned, Shimano has a more immediate bite point, SRAM a longer modulation – but both stop the bike on a dime.

Lastly, battery and maintenance aspects: SRAM’s AXS is fully wireless, meaning each derailleur has its own rechargeable battery, whereas Shimano’s Di2 uses one central battery wired to both derailleurs. In practice, this meant on the Cube I had to keep an eye on two battery charge levels (front and rear derailleurs), though they last ~60 hours per charge so it’s not troublesome. The nice part about SRAM is if your rear derailleur battery dies mid-ride, you can swap in the front’s battery in a pinch to get your shifting back. Shimano’s single battery (in the seat tube) lasts a very long time (several hundred kilometers easily), but if you forget to charge it and it dies, you lose shifting until you charge up. I’ve personally never run a Di2 battery flat on a ride – the system gives plenty of warning and stages the shutdown (cutting off front shifting first) to get you home. Overall, both groupsets are phenomenal, and at this level there’s no clear “winner” – it boils down to preference. I will say that as a rider, I adapted to the SRAM shifting very quickly and enjoyed the uncluttered look (no wires at all). Meanwhile, Ultegra Di2 impressed me with its silky smooth shifting and slightly quieter drivetrain. If you love cutting-edge tech and simplicity, you’ll love SRAM’s wireless setup; if you value time-tested ergonomics and a unified battery, Shimano still leads there. Either way, neither groupset held either bike back – I could shift under full power on both without issues, and they both add to the joy of riding these high-end machines.

8. Conclusion & Ideal Use Case

Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX: After extensive testing, my impression is that the Cube Litening AERO SLX is a superb all-round aero road bike – one that combines speed and efficiency with a welcome dose of comfort and practicality. It delivers nearly the same level of pure performance as the Canyon Aeroad, but in a package that is a bit more approachable for the everyday enthusiast. I would recommend the Cube Litening SLX to riders who want a top-tier race bike that can double as a long-distance machine. Its ideal use case is someone doing fast group rides, road races or fondos in hilly terrain, or any rider who craves aero speed but doesn’t want to be beaten up by their bike on every crack and pothole. The Cube handles big climbs and descents with confidence, making it a great choice for mountainous century rides (exactly what I put it through in the Black Forest). It’s also an excellent option for heavier riders (like myself) because it’s stiff and solid, and the stock gearing plus tire clearance allow you to tailor it for steep climbs and comfort. In short, the Litening AERO SLX is a balanced aero racer – one that lets you go fast but also go long. Cube managed to create a bike that’s very, very quick yet doesn’t feel like a torture device on rough roads or marathon rides. That’s a combination that a lot of amateur racers and performance-minded riders will appreciate.

Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8 Di2: By comparison, the Canyon Aeroad remains a benchmark for outright speed. It’s the bike I’d choose when I want to absolutely hammer on smooth roads or need maximum stiffness for sprinting and aggressive riding. The Aeroad is ideal for scenarios where comfort is secondary – criteriums, short high-intensity races, or perfectly paved courses where you can exploit its razor-sharp handling. It holds speed like a rocketship and demands you give your best, rewarding you with exhilarating performance when you do. However, if I were planning a long solo ride with mixed road quality, or a multi-hour mountain ascent/descent challenge, I’d likely take the Cube for its slight extra compliance and forgiving nature. Both bikes are high-end, well-engineered machines, and choosing between them really comes down to your priorities: pure uncompromising speed (Canyon) versus speed with a bit of smoothness and versatility (Cube).

Finally, it’s worth noting that the Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX also offers a great value for the spec you get –  it undercuts some big-name rivals with similar components. Cube might not have the same cachet or pro tour mystique as Canyon (or Specialized/Trek/etc.), but this bike proves they can compete at the highest level. After my time with it, I feel the Litening SLX is somewhat of an under-the-radar gem: it’s light, fast, and surprisingly comfortable, making it one of the best-kept secrets in the aero road bike category. If you’re in the market for an aero bike that won’t beat you up and doesn’t break the bank for what it offers, the Cube Litening AERO SLX should definitely be on your shortlist.

In conclusion, my experiences can be summed up like this – the Canyon Aeroad is a missile that’s laser-focused on speed, while the Cube Litening is almost as fast but far more forgiving when the road or ride gets rough. Depending on your needs, each has its charm. As someone who loves going fast but also values not feeling shattered after a long ride, the Cube Litening AERO C:68X SLX really impressed me and struck a fantastic balance between performance and comfort. It’s a bike I can eagerly hammer on, but also happily live with on an all-day adventure. And for many of us enthusiasts, that balance is exactly what we’re looking for in a top-level road machine.