I've ridden the CR1 and was really impressed with the ride quality. It still felt snappy, lively and quick but super smooth. It seems like the top tube is a little straighter than some of the sloping designs, so it kind of looks a little more traditional and the frame doesn't appear to look as compact as some other designs. I think aesthetically, people will either like the sharper lines and edgy looks, or they won't. It doesn't particularly excite me to look at, but the ride is definately all good. The Addict R1 however, looks awesome! Scott have definately got their finger on the carbon pulse though.

Just a quick question: what's the point in reviewing bikes in such a wide-ranging price bracket when four out of the final five then end up costing the maximum amount (£2500)?

All things being equal, you would expect a more expensive bike to be better than a cheap one.

Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule (the Cannondale), but why bother choosing to select between £1500 and £2500 if you then pick ones costing £2500. All it does it make it really obvious to those who can't afford a £2500 bike that what we're riding is perceived to be second rate and that you only chose £1500 - £2500 to make it look as though you're attempting to review bikes at an affordable level (which you're not really).

I have the Bianchi Infinito and I love it, it is imo awsome.

In fact I think I love ot more than the misses ; )

2010 Bike of the Year, it's only just March!!!

My bike made it into the top 50, i'm happy :)

I have to agree with Barry Bridges, were the results not aggregated by some means to take into account the cost? In terms of fun/£ or utility/£ I can't believe you need to spend £2.5k. Perhaps I'm missing the point and this is intended as more of an aspirational 'bikes I wish I could afford'.

Are you going to show the other bikes, same as the 2009 review?

I agree with BarryBridges, last year you claimed £1200 to £1700 is the price that the average CyclingPlus reader spends on a bike. So why raise is to £2500 this year? I would have thought a £1500 to £2000 range would have provided a fairer playing field.

I suppose when you need to look at these bikes in context of the full article.

My bike was £4000 and I hope it would be better than all the above. if, however, you have £1500 to spend, then you just look at the cheaper bikes that have a decent review

You know what the real Bike of the Year is? The one YOU own, the one YOU ride and the one YOU love!!! Wouldn't stop riding my Trek Madone just 'cus Cycling Plus doesn't like it.....

As is always the case, it very much depends on which of the manufacturers pay the most to advertise. You should really take any review with a pinch of salt. These very companies pay keep these magazines going in terms of advertising so this is usually a fair reflection of who is spread across single/double page adverts!

you still have to pedal it....

FELT F3 owner now for the past 3 years............

Still impressed by the ride quality and stiffness and pro quality dura ace 7800 spec.

The only upgrade I made was the wheels and saddle.......Kysrium Sl and Selle Flite Carbon...15.9lbs now sweet!!

Beast value for sure at any level...............

Isn't it all a bit like putting in golf? "These putts just won't go in. It must be the putter" - Do all these bikes really make the middle aged, lager drinking Dad (like me) go any faster. Perhaps there other factors to consider such as practice, technique, dedication and passion.

It's turning into TopGear on here... 'this ferrari is fantastic, almost as good as the lamborghini i tested the other week, but i still prefer the aston martin'... but who can afford them???

Next we'll all be riding round in Versace or Gucci jerseys...

Its a ridiculous test - there seems to a large variation of pricing and, as others have written here, who is able to afford them? I thought we were in the midst of a recession? Clearly this is not the case at Cycling Plus. Last years test of 1200 to 1700 is far more realistic especially considering bike to work schemes etc.

Pandering to the whims of thebike companies seems more important than a balanced objective view of bikes real people can afford or are likely to consider buying. I'm losing faith with Cycling Plus.

handsome devil (Smiths fan by any chance?).

This is an accusation that is often made against cycling magazines and consumer magazines in general - but I can assure you that this is not the case at Cycling Plus, and never has been in the decade that I’ve been associated with the magazine. In getting the bikes in for the test no attention was paid to who advertised and who didn't; in choosing the top bikes the same is true. A lot of the companies who had the most highly rated bikes have rarely advertised in Cycling Plus. If you look back over the last year of Cycling Plus we think you'll be hard pressed to find any advertising from either Cannondale or Storck, the only two bikes two achieve maximum marks. In addition to this, our large number of testers included some who aren't employed full time by Cycling Plus or Future Publishing (but who are very experienced cyclists, racers and former bikeshop employees) and who won't have paid any attention to who does or does not advertise in the magazine. We tried to make the test as comprehensive as possible, and while a few brands weren’t represented, this is mainly because they chose not to participate in the test. For several of the brands we did test it was the first time that they had ever been seen in the magazine, and again would rarely or never have advertised with us.

The test results are purely the opinion of the testers. At no point did any of Future’s advertising team or any of the companies who supplied the bikes have any influence over the final result. These were the bikes that we liked the most – it really is as simple as that. You can disagree with our conclusions – and doubtless some people will – but it is entirely inaccurate to suggest that advertising played any part whatsoever in the result.

Simon Withers, Product Editor, Cycling Plus magazine

It's not that people disagree with your conclusions at all...but there's a certain 'so what?' factor when the 'top bikes' cost the 'top price'. You're just not comparing apples with apples here.

Four of the bikes in the top five cost £2500, which the top of the price bracket you chose. Personally I don't think you're swayed by the bike companies, but from the consumer's point-of-view it's not a very useful test unless you've got £2500 to spend (which, I think it might be fair to say, most people don't).

If the top five all had a 'value for money' component to them then it would make sense - you'd be able to say 'well, the £2500 one is clearly the best in absolute terms, but if you pay half the price you get more than half the quality with bike X so that one is better value'. Otherwise it ends up as a meaningless comparison.

It's like conducting a review of road cars costing £10k - £250k and then saying the Ferrari is the best. We all know that. But we can't all afford Ferraris.

That said, I note you did review the £1k bikes in your most recent issue, so perhaps there could be more of this type of review, where you group things by price bracket. And also (just my two cents), maybe offer some thoughts and opinion on what EXTRA you get by spending more. E.g. what is the difference between a £1k and £1.5k bike? Is the extra £500 at this price point a bigger difference than between a £2k and £2.5k bike, for example?

To me this test means one thing; it is possible to get a bike for 1800 quid that is as good as a bike costing 2500 quid.

The cost of the bike is not directly proportional to the quality.A 2500 pound bike is not neccessarily better than a 1800 pound bike. It pays to look at the specs of the components and check out some stuff before buying a bike.

question: If you buy the Cannondale would you wait for the storekeeper to hand you the 1 penny change?

Why the ridiculous pricing of Stg 1799.99?

Barry

I'm not sure that the 10-250k comparison is entirely accurate, as the dearest there would be 25 times more expensive than the cheapest, whereas the most expensive bike on test was less than twice as dear as the cheapest - there may be a grand's difference but they're all at least in the same ball park. In addition to this, the winning bike was actually the least expensive of the top five. The £1000 range enabled us to review a wider range of bikes from more manufacturers than was the case last year (50 bikes compared with 37).

Another of the reasons for a wider price range than last year, was that if we had gone just for £1500-£2000 bikes we'd have ended up testing bikes that were exactly the same as last year's models (perhaps with cosmetic changes) after you take inflation into account (inflation's low, but exchange rate issues have hiked bike prices considerably over the last year). And that wouldn't have offered our readers anything new.

We have in the last few months tested road/sportive bikes under £1000, road bikes around the £800 mark, commuter/urban bikes under £1000 and this month's main bike test is also concentrating on bikes costing much less than £1000. The test of cyclocross bikes concentrated on bikes under £1000 as did the folding bikes tested last summer.

Cycling Plus readers encompass a very wide range of riders, and very few tests will appeal to every reader, but our aim is to make the magazine as inclusive as possible. When we do clothing and component tests for instance, we'll try to cover as wide a range as price points as possible, from mass market to high-end, knowing that Cycling Plus readers will buy each of them.

And Barry, taking another of your points, later in the year we are going to do what you say in of of our tests - looking at what more you get for your money each time you step up an amount.

I'll try to reply to more points later but probably not until the weekend. The 50-bike Bike of the Year test took up all of my time January and a lot of February (as well as a lot of work late last year), and I'm still trying to catch up with the rest of my job!

43Guy. We do the test early in the year so that the bikes are still available to buy. 2010 bikes start reaching the market late in 2009 and stay on sale until the second half of 2010, often selling out by late summer. If we'd done the test later in the year they wouldn't actually be available, making it purely a retrospective - and thus less relevant - test.

We're also planning next year's Bike of the Year test already, and will be taking note of readers' comments on this year's test. But if any of you can arrange for some more cycling-friendly weather in early 2010 I'd be grateful...

Jah99, not surprised you liked the CR1 or that Ianeverton likes the Infinito or Almera the Felt F3 - they're all good bikes.

Simon Withers, Product Editor, Cycling Plus magazine

3rd of March and you've picked the BIKE OF THE YEAR (lol)...c'mon guys who's been pressurizing you.

You tested the Ridleys Noah, Helium & Damocles? The De Rosa King 3? Storck Absolutist?

The list of bikes you didn't test muct be pretty big for these boys to be the top 5. They are nice bikes, no doubt, but it reeks a bit of pleasing powerful interests. Hope I'm wrong.

Oh...despite me reeling off expensive bikes, it's a bot of a...shame...that only one "affordable to most " made the final 5.

Storck is best as it doesn't have white handlebar tape!

I couldn't spend £2.5k on a bike. But lets be fair to c+ - they do plenty of reviews throughout the whole price spectrum. I haven't read the review yet - but I would like to see best bike in class - ie best £500, £1000, £1500 etc.

Another missing from all reviews is durability - all bikes ride nice when they are brand spanking new - but how does the paintwork last, how well does it polish up. - will it look dated when next years model comes out.

>>3rd of March and you've picked the BIKE OF THE YEAR (lol)...c'mon guys who's been pressurizing you.

Most 2010 bikes are already released. That is the way product releases work. They do not wait until July to release a 2010 bike. Similar to cars.

I must admit I share Passout's concerns regarding bar tape. The last couple of years have seen a massive number of bikes we test coming in with white bar tape - even one of the cyclocross bikes - and saddles, sometimes seatposts and stems. These look great in the showroom but after a few months of grime I'm not sure they'll look quite so pristine. My own bikes have black or coloured tape (yellow in one case, but even that's easier to clean than white), but never white...

Simon Withers, Product Editor, Cycling Plus magazine

"Most 2010 bikes are already released. That is the way product releases work. They do not wait until July to release a 2010 bike. Similar to cars."

My gripe is that I'd like them to do a whole year's riding on a bike, and then announce what the best of the year was. The vested interests would still get their free publicity/marketing in the increased sales on the next year's model.

A bike isn't riding exaclty the same in March after one months testing from brand new, as it is is November after 10 months riding on all manner of terrain.