You can spend multiple thousands on a wheelset in 2026, but is it really necessary? With more affordable options claiming similar aerodynamic gains, riders could save a lot of cash without sacrificing meaningful performance if the claims are to be believed. Perhaps there’s a sweet spot between price and speed? To find out, we gathered some of the best wheelsets and used Favero’s Assioma Pro RL pedals to measure real-world performance and uncover how much speed you gain for your money.
The test
While it’s impossible to get truly accurate results testing in the real-world due to variables such as wind, body position and terrain, these are the results that matter. Regardless of what wind tunnel test results might tell us, those tests are invariably conducted in extremely controlled conditions, sometimes even without a human rider involved at all. You need to make sure that data translates to the road, so outdoor speed tests still have their place when trying to determine which kit or components work best for you.
To control as many of these variable as possible, Liam completed laps of a flat, fast 4.7km loop on each wheelset, riding at a set power and maintaining the same riding position throughout. He followed the same line through corners and focused on keeping each run as consistent as possible.
Two runs were completed on each wheelset and an average calculated, with testing carried out in dry, calm conditions. Tyre pressure was also set individually for each wheelset using Silca’s calculator, taking measured tyre width into account.
To ensure the test was as accurate as possible, precise power data was essential. Liam used Favero’s new Assioma Pro RL pedals, the Italian power meter specialist’s latest Look Keo-compatible power meter pedal.
When you’re talking about power data, accuracy and consistency are really important. We’re very confident these pedals are accurate, and Dave’s testing in his review of the Pro RS version last year – featuring the same hermetically sealed spindle technology as the Pro RL – showed the accuracy to be as good as any other power meter on the market.
he battery life of the entire PRO family has also been increased from 60 to 160 hours, ensuring more than enough runtime for the testing session and far beyond.
The wheels
So, onto our chosen wheelsets. The aim was to include a range of prices, although most brands understandably put forward their fastest options, so the line-up leans towards the premium end.
Starting things off are Yoeleo’s CS60 wheels. At £1,650, they represent strong value for a carbon-spoked wheelset, with the weight coming in at a 1,285g for the pair.
Next are the Scribe Elan Ultra 6s, priced just under £2,000. With their distinctive spoke design and bold performance claims, they’ll be an interesting benchmark at 1,289g.
Roval’s Rapide CLX III wheels – priced at just under £3,000 – are also included – likely to see plenty of race wins this season under riders such as Tim Merlier, Lotte Kopecky and Remco Evenepoel. They come in at 1,555g.
Vision’s Metron 60 RS SL – over £3,000 for the pair – is another wheelset commonly seen in the pro peloton, and they weigh 1,390g.
Enve’s SES 4.5 wheels are priced at £3,350 at RRP, and feature the widest internal rim width on test at 25mm. While a newer Pro version exists, these remain a great option, weighing 1,432g.
Finally, the most expensive wheelset on test is the Scope Artech 6 (yours for £3,500), with the lightest weight of 1,244g.
Setup
A set of tyres was supplied for each wheelset by Hutchinson – the Blackbird Race – allowing for a consistent setup across the test, including equal amounts of sealant in each tyre and no last-minute installation issues. During installation, a few observations were also noted.
The Enve wheels, with their hookless design, produced a sharp crack as the bead seated, while the Rovals proved a little tricky to seal tubeless, largely due to the valves.
The Scribes impressed with perfect taping and a high-quality finish, while the Yoeleo wheels arrived with tyres fitted, though these required a fair amount of thumb pressure to remove.
Finally, both the Scope and Vision wheels were faultless.
Handling and ride quality
Before we reveal which wheels were fastest, Liam made a few notes on which wheels handled the best. Topping that list were the Roval Rapide CLX III wheels, which he said felt the smoothest both over broken surfaces and through corners, while the cheapest wheels on test, the Yoeleo CS60, felt the stiffest.
One factor that contributes to stable handling – particularly when cornering at speed – is a lower stack height. The 10.5mm stack height of the Favero Assioma Pro RL pedals helps achieve this, while the 53mm Q-factor meant Liam didn’t have to change anything about his saddle height when swapping pedals.
The pedals also offer one of the widest contact surfaces among Look-compatible power meter options, providing a stable platform for efficient power transfer. At just 130g per pedal, they remain lightweight, and tension can be easily adjusted via an Allen key. But back to the wheels…
Results
The ‘fastest’ wheelset on the day and with the fastest average was the Scope Artech 6. The ‘slowest’ on the day went to Yoeleo’s CS60 wheels, but they are also the most affordable by some margin, and the time differences are pretty small here, even compared to our fastest wheelset on the day.
As one of our readers has already pointed out in the comments: a seven-second time difference between the ‘fastest’ and ‘slowest’ wheelsets is far too narrow to tell us that one wheelset is ‘faster’ than the other, and there are far too many variables in real-world testing to say with any certainty that you will ride quicker on the wheels that came first in our test.
The good news? No discernible difference means that where average speed is concerned, you won’t be disadvantaged by going for one of our more affordable wheelsets.
| Wheelset | Run 1 | Run 2 | Average |
| Enve SES 4.5 | 8:05 | 8:03 | 8:04:00 |
| Roval Rapide CLX III | 8:03 | 8:03 | 8:03:00 |
| Scribe Elan Ultra 6 | 8:04 | 8:05 | 8:04:50 |
| Yoeleo Qian Kun CS60 | 8:10 | 8:09 | 8:09:50 |
| Scope Artech 6 | 8:05 | 7:59 | 8:02:00 |
| Vision Metron 60 RS SL | 8:08 | 8:06 | 8:07:00 |
In terms of the best bang for your buck, we’d nominate the Scribe Elan Ultra 6 based on this test alone. They averaged 8:04:50 and were the second-cheapest wheelset we tested. According to our tester Liam, they proved fast and comfortable while be easy to set up.
Find out more about Favero’s latest Assioma Pro RL pedals here
14 thoughts on “Can budget carbon race wheels compete with premium offerings on the road? We assessed a range of price points in a real-world speed test to find out”
Surely those margins, with seven seconds covering all wheelsets, are way too narrow to prove anything about which one is fastest? Liam is doubtless a very skilful rider and kept as close to the desired power and replicating the same line each time as possible but the margins must at least potentially be attributable to human variations rather than differences between the wheels? The fact that for the winning wheel there is a six second difference between runs, three times greater than the difference for any of the others, surely demonstrates this.
We thought the disclaimer about real-world testing and conclusion say as much, but perhaps it could be a little clearer. Until an edit has been added I’ll say it: nope, there was no measurable difference between the wheelsets!
The average between 8:04 and 8:05 is 8:04.5 (for the Scribe), not 8:4:30. Same for the Yoleo. That’s tenths of a second, it’s base 10, not 60.
I think Excel (or Google Sheets) has interpreted your 8:04 as 8 hours and 4 minutes, not as 8 minutes and 4 seconds.
(I have the same issue; I solved it by inputting my time as 00:8:04.)
How do you know Liam didn’t go above and beyond and test each one for ~8 hours? 160 hours of battery life would still just about cover it.
Apologies and thanks for spotting, fixed the text and waiting for table to be changed. We will get him to do eight hours on each next time to make up for the error…
The other error is that you think £1650 is budget.
The claimed weight of the Rovals is 1,305g – what’s caused the difference to weigh in at 250g more?!
It looks to me like the weights quoted for the other wheels are just the manufacturer’s stated weights (rather than weights measured by road.cc) and therefore this is presumably just some kind of copy error.
None of these wheelsets is affordable.
Why not test some at £600-£800?
Hunt would be a good comparison as they currently have plenty on sale and they are excellent wheels. I doubt they’d be any slower either. …And no discussion about what you get for the big bucks if not speed?
Seems like rather a lot of unnecessary work when the primary purpose of the piece is to flog some power meters.
Good test and fair points raised. Well done.
Good test. In the end appreciation is always subjective, one person’s ‘compliant’ is another’s ‘noodle’.
I didn’t ride any of these wheelsets but what I will say is that it’s certainly possible to burn a tidy pile of extra cash without any tangible benefit. I was lucky enough to have had access to a set of Fulcrum Sharq57’s and a pair of Princeton carbonworks hoops -the former mine, the latter those of a friend- over a period of three weeks and frankly couldn’t detect nor measure -assioma mx pro pedals for power output and Edge1040 solar for the rest- any difference except for the freehub sound. But the Princetons were almost 2k more expensive.
£1650 is not budget. It’s not even close to being budget
In what world is £1,650 considered a budget price for a pair of wheels?
It’s no wonder that the cycling industry is struggling.