Decathlon may be best known for its bargain baselayers and family tents, but with Van Rysel, the French giant has been causing a stir in the WorldTour. After the launch of the RCR last year, the RCR-F marks a bold new entry into the performance-driven aero race bike arena.
Under the Decathlon-AG2R La Mondiale team, the new RCR-F is battling it out in the WorldTour peloton. Most surprising is that despite its sales channel being a big box sports store, the RCR-F is unapologetically a performance race bike. Its long and low geometry dictates an aggressive riding position that only the athletic will be able to manage. And although it might not be as exceptionally well-priced as the RCR, in typical Decathlon style, the RCR-F still undercuts much of the competition.
While our full review is still to come, I’m now a few weeks into riding this bike, including a trip to Roubaix in search of the roughest cobbles. This ‘In for Review’ article shares the basics of this new bike, along with some early thoughts on what it is, and what it isn’t.
Who is the RCR-F for?
Beyond the WorldTour, the RCR-F should still be viewed as a race bike first and foremost. If you enjoy a local crit or fast, flat road race, the RCR-F makes sense. It is an aero-focused bike that builds on the RCR's ‘performance on a budget’ reputation.
With deep aero tubes that make use of the UCI's newly relaxed rulings, the RCR-F, as you may expect, has gained weight compared to its skinnier, do-it-all RCR brother. The size S Team Replica Dura-Ace model I have for review comes in at 7.6 kg (without pedals or bottle cages) – not the heaviest in the WorldTour, but the Decathlon-AG2R La Mondiale riders were reportedly reluctant to see the weight pushed any higher than this.
According to team staff, the RCR-F is said to be the right choice in the WorldTour for races that feature less than 1,500 metres of climbing per 100 km. That may be a flat ride to pros but it can be plenty demanding for mortals living in flatter parts of the world. Either way, it’s a metric that should be taken with a generous pinch of salt, as most of us don’t ride at WorldTour speeds.
Compared to the RCR, Van Rysel, with the help of aero experts Swiss Side, claims the RCR-F is 13 watts more efficient at a speedy 45 km/h (without bottles or cages). The white paper also includes a figure at 55 km/h (a saving of 20.1 W). However, this figure includes bottles and cages, which makes it impossible to compare the two figures.
Almost all of the claimed efficiency gains come from the front of the bike. At 45 km/h a 1.2-W saving comes courtesy of a deeper fork, a 4.4-W saving at the head tube with this section moving in the same direction as Ridley’s Noah Fast 3.0, and a 2.7-W saving from the dining table of a cockpit. The down tube, which has also seen a significant overhaul from the RCR, yielded only a 1.7 W of improvement. The other areas that saw improvement were not listed in the brand’s white paper, with these four areas noted as seeing the most significant improvements.
Deda was once again enlisted to produce the bar and stem combo. With a profile that’s far deeper than most, the bar is claimed to save 2.7 W compared to the RCR cockpit. However, this comes at the expense of the riding position, where the tops are now so deep that for anyone with small hands, there is no longer a viable relaxed riding position. And even for those with bigger hands that can wrap around the tops of the bar, it’s far from comfortable.
With the tops out of commission, you’re left with the hoods and the drops. As a result, Van Rysel and Deda paid close attention to the drop shape, with an ovalised ergonomic profile that sits in your hands and is far nicer than a traditional round section. On the cobbles of Roubaix, this was particularly beneficial and something that the other reviewers I have spoken with praise greatly.
And this is where we arrive back at who this bike is for. If you enjoy a ride spending time on the tops, taking in your surroundings at 30 km/h or less, the RCR-F will feel like the wrong bike. Correction – it is the wrong bike for you. In this case, the RCR is the better pick of Van Rysel’s two race bikes. If, however, the tops are essentially just a bridge between the shifters and the stem, and you often see average speeds exceeding 35 km/h with a number pinned on, then the RCR-F is worth considering.
Unlike the RCR, which comes in a Pro and a standard frame, the RCR-F is only available in the brand's more premium ‘Pro’ carbon fibre layup. Compared to the RCR Pro, the company claims head tube stiffness has increased by 7%, while the bottom bracket stiffness remains the same.
Van Rysel has ensured the RCR-F is up-to-date with a 33 mm max tyre clearance, which should future-proof the frame for at least a few years of tyre width trends. A BB86 press-fit bottom bracket bucks the trend for threaded bottom brackets, allowing for a wider shell to be used. A proprietary aero seatpost and wedge clamp round off the frameset.
Try before you buy
If you are reading this and thinking the RCR-F could be the bike for you, it is worth taking some time to study the geometry chart and, ideally, swinging a leg over the bike before placing an order. The bike is longer and lower than many mainstream bikes, even those found within the WorldTour. It surprised me how much Van Rysel has seemingly built this bike with its sponsored athletes in mind. At 172 cm (5’7”) with a saddle height of 72.5 cm, I tend to ride bikes with a reach of 380 mm and a stack of 530 mm with a 100 mm stem. For example, my personal bike, a 52 cm Specialized Tarmac SL8, comes in at 380 mm and 527 mm.
Like what you're reading? There's more below, but you'll have to be a member to read it. Escape Collective is 100% membership-funded, with no advertising and no affiliate links in our product coverage. Our work is only possible through your support. Need another reason to join? Our Member Purchase program offers discounts of 20% or more from participating brands like Velocio, Ritchey, Hunt Wheels and more (we get no revenue from your purchases; this is purely a member benefit).
Did we do a good job with this story?
