ComparisonsRapide CLX II vs Rapide CLX III

ROAD DISC WHEELSETS · SIDE BY SIDE

Roval Rapide CLX II vs Roval Rapide CLX III

The Roval Rapide CLX III is 215 g lighter (1,305 g vs 1,520 g claimed per pair); the Roval Rapide CLX II costs €749 less (€2,050 vs €2,799) at our October 2026 price check. The rim depth is 51 mm front / 60 mm rear on the Rapide CLX II and 51 mm front / 48 mm rear on the Rapide CLX III. Both share the internal width (21 mm) and the listed tyre range (24–38 mm).

Roval Rapide CLX II wheelsetRovalRapide CLX II Roval Rapide CLX III wheelsetRovalRapide CLX III
SEE THE DIFFERENCE

Both on the same bike.

Drag the handle to switch between the Rapide CLX II (left) and the Rapide CLX III (right) on a Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8 AXS. Black tyres shown for context.

Rapide CLX II Rapide CLX III

Loading bike preview…

Open this pair in the Visualizer ↗
SIDE BY SIDE

Specifications.

Rows with different values are highlighted. Weights are manufacturer claims per pair.

Roval Rapide CLX II and Roval Rapide CLX III specifications
SpecificationRoval Rapide CLX IIRoval Rapide CLX III
Claimed pair weight1,520 g1,305 g
Price per pair€2,050€2,799
Price checkedOctober 2026October 2026
MSRP€2,698€3,498
Rim depth · front51 mm51 mm
Rim depth · rear60 mm48 mm
Internal width · front21 mm21 mm
Internal width · rear21 mm21 mm
External width · front35 mm35 mm
External width · rear30.7 mm31.3 mm
Listed tyre range24–38 mm24–38 mm
Rim typeHookedHooked
Spokes · front / rear18 / 24 · Steel18 / 24 · Carbon
BearingsCeramicCeramic
WarrantyLifetime; conditions applyLifetime; conditions apply
Crash replacementUp to 35% discount Conditions ↗Up to 35% discount Conditions ↗
BEYOND THE NUMBERS

What the differences mean.

General context for the specifications where these two differ. Numbers in superscript link to the sources below each topic. How much each point matters depends on your riding, tyres and bike.

Weight: what the grams mean

The Rapide CLX III is 215 g lighter per pair (1,305 g vs 1,520 g, manufacturer claims).

On a steady climb only total weight counts: a gram in the wheels costs the same as a gram in the frame or a bottle.1 A common rule of thumb is about 2 seconds per 100 metres of climbing for every kilogram, so 150 g works out at roughly 3 seconds on a 1,000 m climb.2

Rim weight matters somewhat more when you accelerate, because the rim spins as well as moves forward; physically that effect is at most about twice that of frame weight, and only while speeding up.1 Claimed weights are measured differently from brand to brand: some include rim tape and valves, others do not, and tolerances of around ±30 g are common.3 Independent weighing usually lands close to the claim once tape and valves are accounted for.4

  1. University of Illinois physics Q&A: rotating weight
  2. Cycling Uphill: time saved per kilogram
  3. Elitewheels: what claimed weights include
  4. BikeRadar: claimed vs weighed (Shimano RS710 review)

Rim depth: aerodynamics, weight and crosswinds

Rim depth: 51 mm front / 60 mm rear on the Rapide CLX II, 51 mm front / 48 mm rear on the Rapide CLX III.

Rapide CLX II · front 35 mm21 mm51 mm Rapide CLX II · rear 30.7 mm21 mm60 mm
Rapide CLX III · front 35 mm21 mm51 mm Rapide CLX III · rear 31.3 mm21 mm48 mm

Cross-sections drawn to scale from the catalogue values for outer width, internal width and depth; hooked rims show the bead hook. Simplified shape, not the manufacturer's exact profile.

Deeper rims generally reduce aerodynamic drag, which pays off most at higher speeds on flat or rolling roads, but they tend to weigh more and can be more affected by gusty crosswinds. In a BikeRadar comparison, 60 mm aero wheels were about a second per kilometre faster on the flat but slower on steep climbs than a considerably lighter set.1

How a wheel behaves in crosswinds depends on the rim shape as well as its depth,3 which is why TOUR measures steering torque in the wind tunnel, not just drag.2 Shallower rims are generally easier to handle in gusts, something lighter riders and riders on exposed roads tend to notice first.1

  1. BikeRadar: aero vs lightweight wheels
  2. TOUR: how wheels are tested in the lab
  3. road.cc: what wheel designers care about

Different rim depths front and rear

The Rapide CLX II (51 mm front / 60 mm rear) and the Rapide CLX III (51 mm front / 48 mm rear) use different rim depths front and rear.

Some wheelsets use a different rim depth front and rear, and brands disagree on the direction. Roval's Rapide CLX II paired a shallower front with a deeper rear to favour stability.1 The newer Rapide III uses a slightly deeper front than rear, and Roval argues most of the aero benefit comes from the front wheel.2 Zipp's 454 NSW rim itself varies in depth along its circumference.3

Treat a split depth as a design choice of the brand rather than an advantage in itself. If crosswinds concern you, the front rim depth is the figure to look at.

  1. Gran Fondo: Roval Rapide CLX II review
  2. Cyclist: Roval Rapide III launch
  3. Zipp: 454 NSW

Carbon or steel spokes

The Rapide CLX II uses steel spokes, the Rapide CLX III carbon spokes (18/24 vs 18/24 front/rear).

Close-up of the Roval Rapide CLX II hub and spokes
Rapide CLX II 18 front / 24 rear · steel
Close-up of the Roval Rapide CLX III hub and spokes
Rapide CLX III 18 front / 24 rear · carbon

A carbon spoke weighs roughly half as much as a premium steel bladed spoke,1 and brands state that carbon is stiffer for its weight.2 That is why carbon-spoke versions often use fewer spokes and weigh less: Hunt's Limitless Ti_UD uses 15/18 carbon spokes against 20/24 steel spokes on the standard Limitless.3 Some reviewers describe a more direct feel when sprinting; that is a riding impression, not a measurement.5

Steel spokes such as DT Swiss Aerolite or Sapim CX-Ray are standard parts that most workshops can source and replace.4 Carbon spokes are more sensitive to side impacts, for example from a derailleur or debris, and may need brand-specific parts or tools;1 some brands include spare spokes or crash replacement to offset this.5 Visually, the lower spoke count and slim blades give carbon-spoke wheels a lighter, more open look.

  1. BikeRadar: carbon spokes explained
  2. Hunt: UD carbon spokes explained
  3. road.cc: Hunt Limitless with carbon and steel spokes
  4. DT Swiss: Aerolite spoke
  5. Cyclist: Roval Rapide CLX III review
WHICH ONE FITS

Choose by what matters to you.

Derived from the specifications above. This is not a performance rating.

Choose the Roval Rapide CLX II if…

  • You want to spend less: €2,050, €749 below the Rapide CLX III
  • You prefer steel spokes (the Rapide CLX III uses carbon spokes)
  • You want the deeper rim: 51 mm front / 60 mm rear against 51 mm front / 48 mm rear
Full Rapide CLX II profile →

Choose the Roval Rapide CLX III if…

  • Low weight matters to you: 1,305 g, 215 g less than the Rapide CLX II
  • You prefer carbon spokes (the Rapide CLX II uses steel spokes)
  • You want the shallower rim: 51 mm front / 48 mm rear against 51 mm front / 60 mm rear
Full Rapide CLX III profile →

Common questions.

How much lighter is the Roval Rapide CLX III than the Roval Rapide CLX II?

215 g. The Roval Rapide CLX III has a claimed pair weight of 1,305 g, the Roval Rapide CLX II 1,520 g. Both figures are manufacturer claims.

Do both take the same tyre widths?

Yes, the range is 24–38 mm for both. Roval approves tyres from 24 mm to 38 mm for both wheelsets. Check the manufacturer's guidance for your exact tyre and pressure.

What is the price difference between the Roval Rapide CLX II and the Roval Rapide CLX III?

€749 at our October 2026 price check: the Roval Rapide CLX II cost €2,050 and the Roval Rapide CLX III €2,799 per pair. Prices change; check the current offer with the retailer or manufacturer.

Your next step.

Roval Rapide CLX II Check my Fit → Product profile Roval product page ↗
Roval Rapide CLX III Check my Fit → Product profile Roval product page ↗

Sources & data notes.

All values come from the Show My Bike catalogue, the same records used on the product pages. Prices checked October 2026. Some model-specific details were reviewed against the manufacturer pages. Manufacturer claims are identified as such. No independent product test is claimed, and no winner is declared.

Related comparisons.

Roval Rapide CL III vs Rapide CLX III 1,555 g vs 1,305 g · €1,449 vs €2,799 Roval · Zipp Rapide CLX III vs 454 NSW 1,305 g vs 1,400 g · €2,799 vs €2,687 ENVE · Roval SES 6.7 vs Rapide CLX III 1,457 g vs 1,305 g · €3,149 vs €2,799