Chinertown

Chinese Carbon Road Bikes => Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components => Topic started by: ENEP on April 19, 2023, 07:57:48 AM

Title: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: ENEP on April 19, 2023, 07:57:48 AM
Hi everybody

Looking for frame recommendations. I've searched but maybe missed frames.
Love the looks of an aero frame with dropped seat stays, deep down tube and integrated routing with one-piece handlebar/stem. I don't mind the hassle of building/servicing.
However i'm not so flexibel so looking for above attributes in combination with short reach/high stack. Body stats: 186cm, 88cm inseam.
I've been trying on a borrowed bike with 590mm top tube, 401mm reach, 590mm stack, 15mm stemspacer and 80mm stem. Not perfect fit but doable, a bit shorter reach would be ideal if possible.

Findings:
Tantan/seraph TT-X34, size XL, TT 574, Reach 399, stack 584.
Shorter TT and reach and lower stack compared. Maybe doable with stemspacer and shortish stem/bar.

Velobuild
(not sure about the pinarello copy cat looks)
VBR218, size XXL, TT 575mm, reach 396, stack 585
Shorter TT and reach and lower stack compared. Maybe doable with stemspacer and shortish stem/bar.

Carbonda (not full on aero looks but still a viable option if no other option..)
CFR 1056, size L TT 560, reach 385, stack 589
CFR 1056, size XL, TT 580, reach 393, stack 610

SEKA (shorter and higher, great looks, bit priecy maybe for a china frame)
Exceed, size XL, TT 575, reach 394, stack 594

Any other options?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: svanimpe on April 19, 2023, 02:29:47 PM
Hi ENEP,

We seem to have a similar body type. Keep in mind that high stack + low reach = upright position, so not usually found on an aero frame, rather a gravel or endurance frame. In your case, you definitely need to find something with a lower reach, as an 80mm stem is way too short for you to put on an aero frame. Aero frames generally have a short wheelbase and steep head tube angle, which you need to pair with a longer stem, or you end up with an extremely twitchy bike.

I've briefly tried the Carbonda 1056 for it's lower reach/higher stack (it's an endurance frame), but the wheelbase was already too short for my 90mm stem and 40cm handlebars. I'm currently on a Carbonda 696, which is a good fit for me.

For my next build, I'm going for a Yishun G075-D, which is about the only frame that has a short enough reach for me not to have to flip my stem up (which isn't possible with integrated cables). Here's an example build from a local brand (that charges way too much):
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: xandilly on December 20, 2024, 12:38:36 PM
Hi ENEP,

We seem to have a similar body type. Keep in mind that high stack + low reach = upright position, so not usually found on an aero frame, rather a gravel or endurance frame. In your case, you definitely need to find something with a lower reach, as an 80mm stem is way too short for you to put on an aero frame. Aero frames generally have a short wheelbase and steep head tube angle, which you need to pair with a longer stem, or you end up with an extremely twitchy bike.

I've briefly tried the Carbonda 1056 for it's lower reach/higher stack (it's an endurance frame), but the wheelbase was already too short for my 90mm stem and 40cm handlebars. I'm currently on a Carbonda 696, which is a good fit for me.

For my next build, I'm going for a Yishun G075-D, which is about the only frame that has a short enough reach for me not to have to flip my stem up (which isn't possible with integrated cables). Here's an example build from a local brand (that charges way too much):

Hi svanimpe,

Currently eyeing the 1056 frame and was wondering if you could offer any insight? Am incidentally also about the same build - 186cm, 88cm inseam - and not sure whether to pick between a size L and XL, what was your experience?

Thanks
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 22, 2024, 06:52:26 AM
Short reach, high stack aero looking bike describes a Pinarello X. Unfortunately there are none like this being made at the moment. When one comes along I will be the first in line. AHEM @PeterXU
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on December 22, 2024, 09:38:29 AM
Short reach, high stack aero looking bike describes a Pinarello X. Unfortunately there are none like this being made at the moment. When one comes along I will be the first in line. AHEM @PeterXU

And I would be second

I really can't understand why Chinese manufacturers will pump out so many overlapping low-stack, long-reach frames and leave the endurance side almost empty (especially if you want some wider -but not gravel wide- tire clearance too)
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jfcb on December 22, 2024, 09:45:30 AM
As a tall guy (192cm) with long legs, I have a similar preference concerning high stack; short reach frames.
Frames I can recommend:
-Dengfu R12: a very underrated frame, loved it and it's solid as a tank. After a couple of years, I sold it since I wanted something new.
- ICAN A9: A great aero frame, ideally for racing. Initially I found it a bit harsh to ride, but with the 28mm tire trend (or even 30 nowadays), it's perfect. Not superlight but I've build it up around 7.3kg with 50mm wheels in XL.
- Adapt B01 cfr Tavelo attack: lightweight aero allround frame and love it very much, especially the handling.

With none of the above frames I have had any issues conerning specs, tolerances and installation. They are all sub 1000euro for which you get great value compared to some other chinese brans i.e.Winspace.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rwtbne on December 23, 2024, 12:36:51 AM
Can you buy directy from ADAPT?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jfcb on December 23, 2024, 02:03:16 AM
Can you buy directy from ADAPT?
I asked for it and it was ok. Meanwhile I read on the forum others got 'rejected'. I think it depends on the timing,location and model since some small brands disclose sales for a certain area o a specific model.
Similar with Workswell, I see people being able to buy their frames while everytime I asked it their reply is "we only sell B2B".
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on December 23, 2024, 11:34:47 PM
Short reach, high stack aero looking bike describes a Pinarello X. Unfortunately there are none like this being made at the moment. When one comes along I will be the first in line. AHEM @PeterXU
And I would be second

I really can't understand why Chinese manufacturers will pump out so many overlapping low-stack, long-reach frames and leave the endurance side almost empty (especially if you want some wider -but not gravel wide- tire clearance too)
Is there any current existing design for reference? I would be interested to make a new frameset.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 24, 2024, 05:13:06 AM
Is there any current existing design for reference? I would be interested to make a new frameset.

 These images are from the Pinarello and geometrygeeks website. The bike looks AMAZING, can handle 35mm tires, all road focused for sure. To be clear I am NOT interested a copy, just the geometry elements and general esthetic. Heck, I am not even all that concerned with frame weight these days, I haven't races for nearly 2 decades and a 300 extra grams on a frame isn't slowing anyone here down.

  https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike/pinarello-x7-2023/

Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on December 24, 2024, 05:50:09 AM
Is there any current existing design for reference? I would be interested to make a new frameset.

Please make a frame inspired by of the Pinarello X. I already bought two CS-GR01 from you, but I would buy 2 more of these ones :)
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Takiyaki on December 24, 2024, 07:34:54 AM
And I would be second

I really can't understand why Chinese manufacturers will pump out so many overlapping low-stack, long-reach frames and leave the endurance side almost empty (especially if you want some wider -but not gravel wide- tire clearance too)
There are a decent number of road-ish gravel frames available with ~42c tire clearance, and a few full on road frames with ~35c tire clearance. Beyond that you'd be splitting hairs.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on December 24, 2024, 07:53:10 AM
These images are from the Pinarello and geometrygeeks website. The bike looks AMAZING, can handle 35mm tires, all road focused for sure. To be clear I am NOT interested a copy, just the geometry elements and general esthetic. Heck, I am not even all that concerned with frame weight these days, I haven't races for nearly 2 decades and a 300 extra grams on a frame isn't slowing anyone here down.

  https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike/pinarello-x7-2023/

I think the LightCarbon LCG-072D was a really good contender in the category but a brand bought the exclusivity on the frame, sadly.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: CoffeeNDonuts on December 24, 2024, 08:24:03 AM
I’m exactly on the same boat. Would love an aero (or semi aero) with “endurance” (higher stack and shorter reach) frame. I think Enve hit it perfectly with their Enve Fray.

I’ve been considering:
1. XMCarbonSpeed CS-R01: geometry is spot on for me, but maybe more of a climbing looking frame. Although not super light.
2. Nextie R2 Road Disc Frame: looks perfect. Aero, short reach, high stack. I just cannot find any reviews. I’m seriously considering this one.

Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 24, 2024, 10:51:38 AM
I’m exactly on the same boat. Would love an aero (or semi aero) with “endurance” (higher stack and shorter reach) frame. I think Enve hit it perfectly with their Enve Fray.

I’ve been considering:
1. XMCarbonSpeed CS-R01: geometry is spot on for me, but maybe more of a climbing looking frame. Although not super light.

I have mine set up on a trainer and find it a bit aggressive but it may be a tad too long for me (Size L). I swapped a 80mm stem instead of a typical 100 and found it much better. I also have 4 cm of spacers under the stem to give me 6-7 cm of drop from the saddle. On that Pina X I could have the stem slammed with a 56 cm frame.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on December 24, 2024, 11:11:25 AM
There are a decent number of road-ish gravel frames available with ~42c tire clearance, and a few full on road frames with ~35c tire clearance. Beyond that you'd be splitting hairs.

It's the "few full on road frames with ~35c tire clearance" that I can't seem to find
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on December 24, 2024, 11:32:43 AM
Is there any current existing design for reference? I would be interested to make a new frameset.

From what most of us read we look for:

Short reach (ex: canyon endurace, pinarello X)
Higher stack (ex: canyon endurace, pinarello X, etc)
27.2 seat tube
Light weight (ex: large and xl sizes with paint around 1000g mark)
Good look (aeroish). Like the speeder cycling r55/tavelo arrow
T47 bottom bracket
35mm tire
Price tag not higher than others
No copycat


I'd suggest as well have a preset of colour paintscheme. And as I mentioned in another post thst you could ship in the box groupset even if you don't provide warranty because it allows for reduction in overall shipping prices.


My last build was a velobuild r066 precisely because it ticks almost all these part. Didn't go for your grevil mostly due to pricing and because it was heavier
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on December 24, 2024, 01:33:48 PM
I honestly wish we could have a aero looking bike with endurance geometry, endurance bikes should still look good (Pinarello X is the best example, the BMC Road machine is a second one).
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 24, 2024, 02:16:49 PM

My last build was a velobuild r066 precisely because it ticks almost all these part. Didn't go for your grevil mostly due to pricing and because it was heavier

 If that clone was made for road tires I would have one now. For real the weight won't hold many back. Have a gel instead of a sammich as a snack while on a ride would be close to the same weight.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on December 24, 2024, 04:32:08 PM
If that clone was made for road tires I would have one now. For real the weight won't hold many back. Have a gel instead of a sammich as a snack while on a ride would be close to the same weight.

I think lots of people wouldn't buy a carbon frame with 1.3kg or more IMHO. An easy solution for that it to have two versions like LC and Carbonda have. The Super light and the normal.

Vb066 is pretty nice for its cost. It's basically a canyon endurace. But I think largest size can only go up to 1.90m or so. it's very confortable though.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 24, 2024, 06:18:16 PM
I think lots of people wouldn't buy a carbon frame with 1.3kg or more IMHO. An easy solution for that it to have two versions like LC and Carbonda have. The Super light and the normal.

 For sure lots of people wouldn't but it's only for bragging rights, 300g is nothing

Vb066 is pretty nice for its cost. It's basically a canyon endurace. But I think largest size can only go up to 1.90m or so. it's very confortable though.
 
 The Geo is nice but the frame specs are outdated.
 
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Ludo on December 24, 2024, 10:55:59 PM
Is there any current existing design for reference? I would be interested to make a new frameset.

Peter, totally different topic but would you consider an “homage” to the pinarello dogma XC but maybe a tad less aggressive?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on December 25, 2024, 12:50:46 AM
I forgot to mention Yishun R068:

https://www.yishunbike.com/product/r068-dperformance-road/
https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike/yishun-r068-daero-road-2022/

I use it as my home trainer bike, really good geometry
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on December 26, 2024, 05:07:06 AM
Peter, totally different topic but would you consider an “homage” to the pinarello dogma XC but maybe a tad less aggressive?

We are considering this as well.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on December 26, 2024, 05:09:09 AM
What do you think about this 56cm size design? T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, max tire size 700*32C, UDH
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on December 26, 2024, 05:40:43 AM
I would like this geometry :)
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on December 26, 2024, 05:48:46 AM
And I have size 54cm designed, but I don't want to upload all of them for now. Anyone wants to see 54cm geometry, PM me. 2D drawing should be available before Chinese Lunar calendar new year.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Chamomile on December 26, 2024, 06:18:11 AM
700*32C
Any plans going bigger?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on December 26, 2024, 10:46:34 AM
My last build was a velobuild r066 precisely because it ticks almost all these part. Didn't go for your grevil mostly due to pricing and because it was heavier

I'm interested in that frame as well, what's the actual tire clearance? I read mixed information on that
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 26, 2024, 02:41:38 PM
max tire size 700*32C, UDH

Any plans going bigger?

 You had me up until the tire size. Personally I would like a min of 35. TBH if the GR01 had 35) road bike tire clearance it would be right up my ally.

Carbon weave instead of UD would be nice as well for the outermost layer. :)

Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on December 26, 2024, 11:34:26 PM
You had me up until the tire size. Personally I would like a min of 35. TBH if the GR01 had 35) road bike tire clearance it would be right up my ally.

Carbon weave instead of UD would be nice as well for the outermost layer. :)


Any plans going bigger?
Yes, we can do 700*35C, but the chainstay would be thinner than it is for 700*32C. UD carbon is the lightest carbon weave option we can keep the frame with original carbon weave instead of black matt or gloss paint.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 27, 2024, 06:49:13 AM
Yes, we can do 700*35C, but the chainstay would be thinner than it is for 700*32C. UD carbon is the lightest carbon weave option we can keep the frame with original carbon weave instead of black matt or gloss paint.

 You are the professional, I only assumed where the stays are almost as long as your GR01 and using a (~86mm) gravel/MTB spec BB going a little wider would not be a problem.

 I do notice the Pina X frame lists a max of 35mm tires as well.

 My preference is not light weight but I realize you have to make what would sell.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Nkearb on December 27, 2024, 02:23:21 PM
The ideal frame
- aero big fat bladed fork and aero headtube
- relaxed geometry like the bike peter posted. So regular people can run a long stem slammed and maintain aero position.
- round seatpost (aero seatpost saves 0 watts)
- 32c/35c tire clearance is fine
- Pressfit BB cause I like to use the Shimano bb
- ACR headset system would be convenient
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on December 27, 2024, 02:41:16 PM
Since we're down with our wishlists, what I'm currently after is:

- high stack, short reach
- BSA/T47 bottom bracket
- aeroish looking, dropped seatstays, integrated seat clamp
- 35c-38c tire clearance
- fully internal cable routing for mechanical derailleurs too
- bonuses: round seatpost, no weird gimmicks (e.g. Longteng extra wide downtube)
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: sync1 on December 27, 2024, 04:35:03 PM
What I would like:
-high stack, short reach
-aero design
-35mm-38mm tire clearance
-73.5-74STA, 72-72.5HTA, around 75mm BB drop, 420mm max chainstays
-27.2mm seatpost
-1100g for Large would be nice
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Dragos on December 28, 2024, 02:27:17 PM
What do you think about this 56cm size design? T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, max tire size 700*32C, UDH

I think the design looks good, I like that it is UDH, but as others have said the tire clearance is the biggest drawback.

The market is lacking a bike similar to the Dogma X that can run 40mm tires. I think there need to be a bike in line with the Enve Fray, Ridley Grifn RS, or BMC Roadmachine which all have a head tube angle of ~72, similar endurance geometry and the ability to run 40mm tires.

Even the Dogma X can technically run 40mm tires as seen in the 2024 gravel championships:

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/tech/2024-gravel-world-championship-tech-trends
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on December 28, 2024, 04:01:18 PM
What do you think about this 56cm size design? T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, max tire size 700*32C, UDH

Thanks for proposing sth.

As others mentioned, 32 seems a bit short. 35/38 sounds more universal.
Also I think headtube seems a bit too long and the 72.5 angle is a bit tricky.
I really like this frame from hongfu http://www.hongfu-bikes.com/products/76.html. It's a bit too expensive because it doesn't include the handlebar and is 32 only. But maybe is a good inspiration. I like that it is simple and has perfect endurance geometry (though fork shape is weird)

I have not tried it yet because at this price my clients prefer western brands (which I can understand and also end up recommending)
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jfcb on December 29, 2024, 04:04:56 AM
Personal opinion, I find it certain requirements listed here remarkable for an aero road bike. They are contradicting.
If you want a aero road bike, you want to go fast and save watts, not just "look fast".
Features of an aero bike are: low frontal area (contradicted if you want large tires), extended head tube (cfr SL8), airfoil shaped tubes (not a round seat post), dropped seat stays, horizontal top tube (limited sloping), integrated handlebar....
- A need for 35mm+ tires? I would question if your target bike is still an aero road bike, it's better to look at some allroad/gravel bikes. In addition,placing large chainrings might become an issue: i.e. the airwolf might be what you're looking for. Patrick Lino made a review about the frame sold by rinascalta. https://airwolfcarbonbike.com/product/airwolf-t1100-carbon-fiber-frame-cycling-cyclocross-bicycle-frames-aero-disc-bike-road-70038c-max-tire-thru-axle-carbon-customize-painting-climbing-bike-frame/ (https://airwolfcarbonbike.com/product/airwolf-t1100-carbon-fiber-frame-cycling-cyclocross-bicycle-frames-aero-disc-bike-road-70038c-max-tire-thru-axle-carbon-customize-painting-climbing-bike-frame/)
- I never understand the desire for a round seatpost, especially on a road bike. For me this is something you install and forget about. For weight savings: If you have a good manufacturer, the weight of the seatpost will be in line with the weight of the frame. Also if you want a fast, aero bike, an airfoil seatpost will save you some watt(s).
- Weight: this might not be an issue, but with the trend of the sub 900g frames, copying Pinarello shaped frames might not be ideal. Their frame shapes make it difficult to produce a lightweight frame. Personally I rather have a form follows function approach.
- A note on geometry: It starts to become more and more common knowlegde dat a longer, higher front setup can save you more watts than a slammed stem position as you can see with time trial bikes. While aero bikes tend to have a low,aggressive geometry, I hope bike manufactures accommodate to this knowledge and increase their stack.

Anyway, that's the opinion of someone who races bikes and likes to ride fast bikes. The audience here might be looking more for a comfortable, but trendy looking bike.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on December 29, 2024, 05:49:45 AM
I think almost everyone here is just asking for a aero-looking frame, that you might describe also as a "modern-looking" endurance frame. Real aero features I believe aren't really needed by anybody looking into this kind of bike.
As for the seatpost, round is useful to have wider options for seat offset and saddle rails, as the proprietary ones often come in only one version.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on December 29, 2024, 05:56:09 AM
I also concur that when I mean aero looking bike, I want the look of a modern race bike (thin but deep headtube).

This is why the Pinarello X is a good example, you could mistake the Pinarello X for the Pinarello F/Dogma MY2023 if you don’t compare them next to each other.

Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on December 29, 2024, 07:27:54 AM
  As for the seatpost, round is useful to have wider options for seat offset and saddle rails, as the proprietary ones often come in only one version.

 A round seat post is more compliant as well. Also, there has been wind tunnel testing that shows a round seat post has little if any affect due to disturbing the trailing turbulence behind the rider.

 As far as tires it has already been shown the trend is getting bigger. Some are already using 35mm racing on the cobbles. (ie 2024 Paris-Roubaix). Paired with the right wheels 30-32 seems the fastest on most roads though.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: janp on December 29, 2024, 09:54:18 AM
The requirements are contradicting because of the difference between people need’s and what they want.
I’m in need of a frame with endurance or gravel geometry too.
But I want a frame that is not as boring as the typical endurance/gravel frames.
So frames with oversized tubes and other “specialties” are welcome. Therefore a round seat tube is not my favorite.
Regarding the look I doubt that the advice to make something inspired by the Pinarello frames will work. I would prefer some more generic aero-look like the canyon aerorad or the spcycle  R065 and many others.
In addition I like to introduce the idea to make a “retro” design, for example a reincarnation of the Cannondale CAAD 3 from 1997.
And on my wish list is to bundle such a frame with handlebars with low drop (100mm) and large flair. The low drop because I’m missing the flexibility and the large flair because my shoulders are good for a 360/380 handlebar but in crosswind conditions, I like to have the option for a wider grip to have more control of wide rims (large depth)
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on January 02, 2025, 04:09:49 AM
OK. So here is our goal to do this new frame, same standard as Faxxxx on headtube and bottom bracket testing.
One piece mold and latex molding
High stack, short reach, more aggressive geometry than Factor but less than Pina X
700*35C max tire clearance, UDH, T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, both top and down 52mm headtube
aero seat post but with two types seat clamps for either 7*7 or 7*9 saddle rails
dropped seat stay, aero design
Size 54cm weight would be around 895+/-30g after painted and with front and rear derailleur hanger mounted.
Here is my only question now: which position do you like the battery located ? Seat post or low side of bottom bracket ?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 02, 2025, 06:12:32 AM
size 54cm weight would be around 895+/-30g after painted and with front and rear derailleur hanger mounted.

 Going to be a nice bike for sure but not for me unless I loose some weight. Kudos though on listening to your customers on many of the attributes !
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on January 02, 2025, 06:48:03 AM
OK. So here is our goal to do this new frame, same standard as Faxxxx on headtube and bottom bracket testing.
One piece mold and latex molding
High stack, short reach, more aggressive geometry than Factor but less than Pina X
700*35C max tire clearance, UDH, T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, both top and down 52mm headtube
aero seat post but with two types seat clamps for either 7*7 or 7*9 saddle rails
dropped seat stay, aero design
Size 54cm weight would be around 895+/-30g after painted and with front and rear derailleur hanger mounted.
Here is my only question now: which position do you like the battery located ? Seat post or low side of bottom bracket ?

Would that still be compatible with mechanical derailleurs?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on January 02, 2025, 06:50:33 AM
Would that still be compatible with mechanical derailleurs?
Yes. Traditional mechanical compatible.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on January 02, 2025, 06:53:17 AM
Going to be a nice bike for sure but not for me unless I loose some weight. Kudos though on listening to your customers on many of the attributes !
Max rider weight 120kg, if you are really heavier than that, you know what to do
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Dragos on January 02, 2025, 07:21:51 AM
in terms of geometry if you are going to have a higher stack, shorter reach, and a chainstay > 420 would you please consider having room for 40mm tires? It would be all road / endurance geometry at this point and I think all endurance bikes in 2025 will start having room for 40mm tires.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on January 02, 2025, 08:03:48 AM
in terms of geometry if you are going to have a higher stack, shorter reach, and a chainstay > 420 would you please consider having room for 40mm tires? It would be all road / endurance geometry at this point and I think all endurance bikes in 2025 will start having room for 40mm tires.

Sorry, it would still be aero road frameset just taking a bit wider tires.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on January 02, 2025, 08:10:45 AM
OK. So here is our goal to do this new frame, same standard as Faxxxx on headtube and bottom bracket testing.
One piece mold and latex molding
High stack, short reach, more aggressive geometry than Factor but less than Pina X
700*35C max tire clearance, UDH, T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, both top and down 52mm headtube
aero seat post but with two types seat clamps for either 7*7 or 7*9 saddle rails
dropped seat stay, aero design
Size 54cm weight would be around 895+/-30g after painted and with front and rear derailleur hanger mounted.
Here is my only question now: which position do you like the battery located ? Seat post or low side of bottom bracket ?

Seatpost if possible.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 02, 2025, 08:47:02 AM
Max rider weight 120kg, if you are really heavier than that, you know what to do


 LOL Yep !

 Impressive ! I only mentioned it because the Pina has a 85KG weight limit. I am 100 at the moment but usually am 90 or so. Ill be in for one Peter as long as the numbers work out. The R01 is a long for me with a 100mm stem but perfect with a 80. Using that on the trainer right now.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Dragos on January 02, 2025, 09:41:58 AM
Sorry, it would still be aero road frameset just taking a bit wider tires.

I am not sure you need tires >32mm on an aero road bike as 30-32mm would be your best bet on road. The GP 5000 S TR only go up to 32.

I think a lot of other people were saying they would want a bike with endurance geometry (high stack / short reach) but "aero looking" such as horizontal top tube, deep head tube as there is a big gap in the market at the moment.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 03, 2025, 06:17:12 AM
I am not sure you need tires >32mm on an aero road bike as 30-32mm would be your best bet on road. The GP 5000 S TR only go up to 32.

 I think 35 should be the max. 30-32 is the norm for the professionals and us mortals could use a bit more cushioning. For some races 35mm tires are being used so there must some merrit to the larger sizes. It has been shown that within the same brand/model of tire the larger sizes are faster when running at the same pressures but give better comfort.

 You mention the 5000 s only going up to 32 but that will change where other brands or race tires can be had in larger sizes. Plus the 5000s is hardly the fastest tire out there now.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jfcb on January 03, 2025, 12:30:17 PM
Paris-Roubaix was won on 32mm tires this year. Even if your local roads are not fantastic, they will be still better than some nasty cobblestone sections.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: janp on January 03, 2025, 12:44:25 PM
Who likes to have a handlebar like this with the frame Peter proposed ?
Drop ca. 100mm and with a rather high flare.
The concept is from Canyon (at least that is where I came across it) but with adjustable width, what I do not like due to the possible risk and instability.

https://www.canyon.com/de-de/fahrradzubehoer/fahrradteile/ersatzteile-verschleiss/canyon-ersatzteile/canyon-pace-aero-drops/10014134.html

But this handlebar is follwowing the same idea as the frame to have something with a different geometry instead of having a lot of offerings with identical geometry,
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 03, 2025, 03:38:04 PM
Paris-Roubaix was won on 32mm tires this year. Even if your local roads are not fantastic, they will be still better than some nasty cobblestone sections.

 LOL I ain't MVP and there were MANY others running 35s. Was an amazing race, he was going like a bat out of hell no one could close the gap. At times he was doing over 50 kph on some of the cobbles SOLO and won by 3 min. Was one of the better Paris-Roubaix races I have watched.

Ur right tho, 32s will be A LOT better than my other road bikes that top out at 25-28mm.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: hoot on January 04, 2025, 05:48:54 PM
The ideal frame
- aero big fat bladed fork and aero headtube
- relaxed geometry like the bike peter posted. So regular people can run a long stem slammed and maintain aero position.
- round seatpost (aero seatpost saves 0 watts)
- 32c/35c tire clearance is fine
- Pressfit BB cause I like to use the Shimano bb
- ACR headset system would be convenient
+1 for pressfit BB86!
I think T47 is not ideal due to the very narrow tool interface and the potential to damage paint/BB area when fitting.
I would also like to see a steeper seat tube angle in larger sizes (74-75 degrees) and a zero offset seatpost option.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: kubackje on January 04, 2025, 07:01:59 PM
+1 for pressfit BB86!
I think T47 is not ideal due to the very narrow tool interface and the potential to damage paint/BB area when fitting.
I would also like to see a steeper seat tube angle in larger sizes (74-75 degrees) and a zero offset seatpost option.

Yeah t47 is overrated. Even guys from parktool said that it's not their favorite bb type. For me pressfit or BSA.

As fro the tires. I think 32c in more then enough, and we all know that if official limit is 32c it can often for 34/35c. There is no need for wide tires on aero bike, also no need for 420mm chainstay. It's not a gravel bike
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: hoot on January 05, 2025, 01:46:17 AM
I didn't see the geometry chart but a decent 75-80mm BB drop would also be nice, given the likelihood for slightly larger tyres, and it's unlikely anyone would race crits on one of these.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 05, 2025, 02:36:21 AM
+1 for pressfit BB86!
I think T47 is not ideal due to the very narrow tool interface and the potential to damage paint/BB area when fitting.

 Has press fit come a long way ? I had a couple Super Six Evos in 2012 and 2014 and the BB sucked bad. They were fine new but needed attention after only a couple years. (creaking) Also - T47 has lots of tool interface on a road BB and even on wider a 86mm bb are fine if careful. Just don't use shit tools/BBs. The only drawback is they don't look that nice.
 Now that I think about it I am sure the bb on my C50 and Master are original and they are 20 years old LOL.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: hoot on January 05, 2025, 04:04:58 AM

 Has press fit come a long way ? I had a couple Super Six Evos in 2012 and 2014 and the BB sucked bad. They were fine new but needed attention after only a couple years. (creaking) Also - T47 has lots of tool interface on a road BB and even on wider a 86mm bb are fine if careful. Just don't use shit tools/BBs. The only drawback is they don't look that nice.
 Now that I think about it I am sure the bb on my C50 and Master are original and they are 20 years old LOL.

Pressfit is very good as long as the BB shell is made within the correct tolerances (dimensions, roundness, alignment) and the Shimano pressfit BB is a nice design. I think most problems in the past were due to poor manufacturing. Recent frames have tended to be better (and I'm sure this one would be within tolerance!). When it's done well you end up with a system that's stiff due to the bearing spacing, and lighter than T47.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jfcb on January 05, 2025, 04:24:17 AM
Who likes to have a handlebar like this with the frame Peter proposed ?
Drop ca. 100mm and with a rather high flare.
The concept is from Canyon (at least that is where I came across it) but with adjustable width, what I do not like due to the possible risk and instability.
https://www.canyon.com/de-de/fahrradzubehoer/fahrradteile/ersatzteile-verschleiss/canyon-ersatzteile/canyon-pace-aero-drops/10014134.html
But this handlebar is follwowing the same idea as the frame to have something with a different geometry instead of having a lot of offerings with identical geometry,

Love the geometry of those handlebars, but indeed I'd rather have them as a one piece / one size than a modular handlebar to avoid any safety issues. Have you seen already similar handlebars appear on the asian market?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: janp on January 05, 2025, 12:09:26 PM
I found this:

http://www.adapt-bikes.com/Products-detail?product_id=103##

I asked Adapt if this is compatible with the canyon drops or if they can provide a quote to me but got no responce.
Another problem (exept from the joints) with the canyon bars is that it looks like if the stem-part is propritary:

https://www.canyon.com/de-de/fahrradzubehoer/fahrradteile/ersatzteile-verschleiss/canyon-ersatzteile/canyon-pace-t-bar/9102266.html

and will only work with special or modified forks.
So far I only found not integrated handlebars (to be used with a normal stem) with ca. 100mm drop
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 05, 2025, 02:55:50 PM
Pressfit is very good as long as the BB shell is made within the correct tolerances (dimensions, roundness, alignment) and the Shimano pressfit BB is a nice design. I think most problems in the past were due to poor manufacturing. Recent frames have tended to be better (and I'm sure this one would be within tolerance!). When it's done well you end up with a system that's stiff due to the bearing spacing, and lighter than T47.

 That's good to hear. My second SS frame I ended up getting praxis thread together bb, installing it and selling the frame.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Icyseanfitz on January 05, 2025, 03:15:17 PM
Interested in seeing how this new frame turns out Peter
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Lotnik on January 06, 2025, 06:57:02 AM
OK. So here is our goal to do this new frame, same standard as Faxxxx on headtube and bottom bracket testing.
One piece mold and latex molding
High stack, short reach, more aggressive geometry than Factor but less than Pina X
700*35C max tire clearance, UDH, T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, both top and down 52mm headtube
aero seat post but with two types seat clamps for either 7*7 or 7*9 saddle rails
dropped seat stay, aero design
Size 54cm weight would be around 895+/-30g after painted and with front and rear derailleur hanger mounted.
Here is my only question now: which position do you like the battery located ? Seat post or low side of bottom bracket ?
I would add to this list konger than usual headtube. Then we can have slamed stems. Battery for me wilk be better in the seat post.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: casper.f on January 26, 2025, 07:29:48 AM
So something like this:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DDXZQarJysb/

But a bit more normal looking and handling?
Is this the goal of this thread or am i interpreting this completly wrong?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on January 26, 2025, 07:43:06 AM
This would be our newest frameset and handlebar. First size would be available in April.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: sync1 on January 26, 2025, 10:01:17 AM
Is seems very good!
Any draf/final geometry chart?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: poyo on January 26, 2025, 10:50:43 AM
Would also be interested
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on January 26, 2025, 11:48:20 AM
This would be our newest frameset and handlebar. First size would be available in April.

It is beautiful. I hope you can keep it affordable.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: BalticSea on January 26, 2025, 01:20:56 PM
A round seat post is more compliant as well. Also, there has been wind tunnel testing that shows a round seat post has little if any affect due to disturbing the trailing turbulence behind the rider.

 As far as tires it has already been shown the trend is getting bigger. Some are already using 35mm racing on the cobbles. (ie 2024 Paris-Roubaix). Paired with the right wheels 30-32 seems the fastest on most roads though.

That would come down to seatpost itself (carbon layup, wall thickness), considering that circle is one of the stiffer shapes.

As for bottom bracket standard... Guys, please let BB86 rest in the trash bin where it rightfully belongs, nobody likes running tiny bearings with VASTLY superior DUB cranks.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: hoot on January 26, 2025, 03:41:49 PM
That would come down to seatpost itself (carbon layup, wall thickness), considering that circle is one of the stiffer shapes.

As for bottom bracket standard... Guys, please let BB86 rest in the trash bin where it rightfully belongs, nobody likes running tiny bearings with VASTLY superior DUB cranks.
Ok... But T47 85.5 doesn't do what you're hoping for then
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 27, 2025, 02:56:12 AM
considering that circle is one of the stiffer shapes.

 Compared to what other shape tube ?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: BalticSea on January 27, 2025, 06:09:26 AM
Compared to what other shape tube ?

Peak Torque has done a video few years ago on compliance of carbon tubes, he also did a simulation of load bearing of few most popular seatpost shapes:
https://youtu.be/C8eg4O3OrvM?si=oRzFzLxhokAimy3J&t=831

27.2mm carbon seatpost had about the same seatpost as D shape post or minimized aero seatposts (he used Giant TCR's shape, but Tarmac, Specialissima and some other bikes have very similar shaped posts). Deep aero seatpost was the most stiff, but it also had the biggest surface area by far considering it had same wall thickness as other tubes (that might not always be the case, i.e. my Winnow aero bike's seatpost is thicker at the front and back, but sides are quite a bit thinner).

In the very same video he also brings up the point about chassis for cars and roll cages – round tubes are used for making them because round tubes are probably the best choice for handling complex loads
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Lotnik on January 27, 2025, 07:38:49 AM
This would be our newest frameset and handlebar. First size would be available in April.

looking good. I'm interested in geo chart. 
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Gloopann on January 27, 2025, 02:59:15 PM
High stack, short reach, more aggressive geometry than Factor but less than Pina X

I might be reading this wrong but I assume you meant less aggressive geometry than Factor Ostro but more aggressive than Pinarello X, unless I am unaware of some super relaxed Factor.

Here is my only question now: which position do you like the battery located ? Seat post or low side of bottom bracket ?

If you stick to T47 or some other threaded standard (which I hope you do, I hate pressfit) my vote is around the bottom bracket 10/10 times, especially if you manage to package it similarly to the current gen supersix evo.

Also, would it be possible to print a grid on the handlebars, where the levers are fixed? I often see horizontal lines printed which are great for setting the height, but people often angle their hoods in and having the grid would allow us to set both the height and the angle symmetrically.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on January 27, 2025, 03:34:17 PM
This would be our newest frameset and handlebar. First size would be available in April.

Looks great! Looking forward to have prices and geometry chart. I have another client building a new endurance mid march so if geometry and pricing is ok, might be a solid choice for him.

Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on January 28, 2025, 03:10:17 AM
Peak Torque has done a video few years ago on compliance of carbon tubes, he also did a simulation of load bearing of few most popular seatpost shapes:
https://youtu.be/C8eg4O3OrvM?si=oRzFzLxhokAimy3J&t=831

 Thanks for the video. Sums up what I knew already about tubing in the first place. All other things being equal the round tube has the most deflection. I  know steel tubing very well but carbon is still a bit of a mystery.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: casper.f on January 28, 2025, 05:31:40 AM
I might be reading this wrong but I assume you meant less aggressive geometry than Factor Ostro but more aggressive than Pinarello X, unless I am unaware of some super relaxed Factor.
Maybe the ostro gravel?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Gloopann on January 28, 2025, 12:35:57 PM
Maybe the ostro gravel?

Don’t think so, the Ostro Gravel has even more reach than the regular Ostro, the stack is a bit taller but I wouldn’t exactly call it a relaxed geometry.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on February 08, 2025, 07:19:09 AM
Looks great! Looking forward to have prices and geometry chart. I have another client building a new endurance mid march so if geometry and pricing is ok, might be a solid choice for him.


looking good. I'm interested in geo chart.
Geometry attached. Size 56cm would be the first mold available in April. Since we make this frameset with high standard as couple of big brands, you could tell the details when it is available, one piece mold, mixed of T1100, 40T, 30T Toray carbon fiber. latex molding etc. The price on this frameset with handlebar won't be that cheap as our previous frameset.  But would be cheaper than some other Chinese brands.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Uberflo on February 08, 2025, 07:43:33 AM
You go for T47i? Any standard for the headset/handlebar cable routing (e. g. FSA ACR or Deda DCR)?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on February 08, 2025, 07:54:31 AM
Geometry attached. Size 56cm would be the first mold available in April. Since we make this frameset with high standard as couple of big brands, you could tell the details when it is available, one piece mold, mixed of T1100, 40T, 30T Toray carbon fiber. latex molding etc. The price on this frameset with handlebar won't be that cheap as our previous frameset.  But would be cheaper than some other Chinese brands.

Seatpost height looks slightly higher than usual. In any case it seems to fit the requirements most people mentioned.
Now looking to hear the pricing as it might the the biggest drawback especially considering the tariffs which are coming soon everywhere
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on February 08, 2025, 07:56:47 AM
You go for T47i? Any standard for the headset/handlebar cable routing (e. g. FSA ACR or Deda DCR)?
700*35C max tire clearance, UDH, T47 85.5mm bottom bracket, both top and down 52mm headtube
two types seat clamps for either 7*7 or 7*9 saddle rails
Size 54cm weight would be around 895+/-30g after painted and with front and rear derailleur hanger mounted.
Handlebar cable routing FSA ACR style.
wireless and traditional mechanical compatible.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jordanc1010 on February 08, 2025, 10:56:13 AM
This sounds perfect for what I want. I am going to buy this depending on price.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on February 09, 2025, 02:12:50 AM
I will wait for the pricing, but I guess the 54 is the one I am waiting for xD
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jordanc1010 on February 09, 2025, 04:46:37 AM
Yea im going to be waiting for a 58. Any idea when that will be coming peter?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: janp on February 09, 2025, 11:21:08 AM
Hi Peter,

can you please add the min. / max. height of the rails to mount the saddle (measured from the center of the BB) to the geometry chart. I made a bad experiences and selected a frame that was not suitable for my saddle height.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: mark335 on February 09, 2025, 02:10:19 PM
Hi guys, I did not want to create similar post with the same requirement, but do you know if on chinese market exisit similar frame to Basso Astra or Diamante?
I am also looking for high stack/low reach, good looking frame, especially horizontal top tube.

Astra 51        S/R 563,4/374,5
Diamante 51  S/R 546.2/378,6

The only frame which comes to my mind is CS-R06 from Peter, but I hope you will know more  ;)
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on February 09, 2025, 03:52:26 PM
Hi guys, I did not want to create similar post with the same requirement, but do you know if on chinese market exisit similar frame to Basso Astra or Diamante?
I am also looking for high stack/low reach, good looking frame, especially horizontal top tube.

Astra 51        S/R 563,4/374,5
Diamante 51  S/R 546.2/378,6

The only frame which comes to my mind is CS-R06 from Peter, but I hope you will know more  ;)

http://www.hongfu-bikes.com/products/76.html - this is a really nice one. A bit on the expensive side though. Price quality I think you can't beat VB066.

Let's see how much this one from Peter will be. I'm curious how competitive it will be. Specs are there, design seems ok but price will determine it's success I guess in this new tariffs world
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jordanc1010 on February 09, 2025, 05:03:56 PM
I agree, if its too pricy I will be going with velobuild 268 unfortunately.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: planet_sammy on February 10, 2025, 12:39:22 AM
I would wait for size 52 and combine this with a new wheelset from peter!
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: hendemic on February 12, 2025, 10:10:09 AM
73deg seatpost is frustrating for those of us with short femurs! The frame looks great, but I need something steeper :(
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: hoot on February 13, 2025, 01:33:34 PM
73deg seatpost is frustrating for those of us with short femurs! The frame looks great, but I need something steeper :(
Unfortunately it's even slacker for the 58! I'm not sure why frame makers do this... A tall rider ends up sitting way back over the rear wheel. Best I can hope for is an inline or forward offset seatpost, but that's not ideal.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Pedaler Pete on February 14, 2025, 12:29:46 AM
Newbie to this thread.  I've been looking for something as close to a BMC Roadmachine geometry and this is it!  I am in for this Carbon Speed frame.  Will take a 54 as soon as it's available.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Mattjohns on February 24, 2025, 04:20:24 AM
Since this isn't available, like almost everything, in proper larger sizes
Any recommendations for a 400 reach - 620 stack aero road frame?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on February 24, 2025, 04:24:37 AM
I have to build a new bike in end of march/April.
@peter
Could you share more details on expected price and availability? I think it will be for the bigger size as my client is +1.85
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Chrisf10 on February 25, 2025, 06:36:15 PM
@PeterXu - any updates on this frame? Looking for a size 52 with cost
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jordanc1010 on February 25, 2025, 06:57:00 PM
I was quoted $1350 excluding shipping but including handlebar. Way to high for me to even consider.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on February 26, 2025, 01:42:54 AM
Wow..
So we're back to square one, still no affordable option with the features lined up in the first posts
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on February 26, 2025, 03:29:52 AM
I was quoted $1350 excluding shipping but including handlebar. Way to high for me to even consider.

woww! Thanks for sharing

Wow..
So we're back to square one, still no affordable option with the features lined up in the first posts

Absolutely right! Good that I didn't present it to my client yet.

This way no need for adding false hopes to him. Back to my best selling VB-066 or FM202


Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jfcb on February 26, 2025, 07:00:48 AM
Wow..
So we're back to square one, still no affordable option with the features lined up in the first posts

Peter did mention it was going to be a high end frame that won't be super cheap. Depending on the final specs, weight and looks it might be a great option.

Since we make this frameset with high standard as couple of big brands, you could tell the details when it is available, one piece mold, mixed of T1100, 40T, 30T Toray carbon fiber. latex molding etc. The price on this frameset with handlebar won't be that cheap as our previous frameset.  But would be cheaper than some other Chinese brands.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on February 26, 2025, 07:13:13 AM
Peter did mention it was going to be a high end frame that won't be super cheap. Depending on the final specs, weight and looks it might be a great option.

Yeah but there's middle ground between super-cheap and 1300+$

I'm not investing that kind of money in a new chinese frame, with all the flaws that a new product might have.
For that amount you can often find the BMC Roadmachine frameset on bike24, sometimes even cheaper
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rasch on February 26, 2025, 11:15:35 AM
Peter did mention it was going to be a high end frame that won't be super cheap. Depending on the final specs, weight and looks it might be a great option.

yeap! Indeed he did.

I believe Jeffrey, me (and virtually most of us, I'd expect), were expecting sth not that high.

$1350 is close to double the prices Carbonda for example does. And just like Jeffrey mentions we can get most of the times cheaper western frames on bike24 or other EU online websites, which have a resale value, because I believe most of the users here don't keep a bike for long/have more than one.

Anyway, nothing to cry about. Wish good luck to Peter, and we keep looking for alternatives
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Nkearb on February 26, 2025, 03:19:45 PM
I think the only issue with recent aero frames is the stack is too low. 32c Tire clearance frames can typically fit 35c


If we just had a specific bar&stem that added a good amount of stack without looking stupid or require 100 spacers that would solve basically all issues
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on February 27, 2025, 09:05:21 AM
I think the only issue with recent aero frames is the stack is too low. 32c Tire clearance frames can typically fit 35c

 Exactly why something like a pinarello x is perfect for an all round bike IMO. For what XM has for frames the CS-GR01 (gravel frame) has excellent geometry but way to wide tire clearance for my taste in a road bike. I am so have a CS-R01 and with 5 cm of spacers it’s not bad but slammed it feels like my SuperSix. It will fit a tire that measures 35 ish though.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: janp on March 02, 2025, 11:34:27 AM
I agree that $1,350 (excluding shipping but including the handlebar) is somewhat ambiguous. However, instead of just discussing the price, I’d like to contribute some constructive ideas on what features could justify a higher cost.

Here are a few things I’d love to see:

1) Seamless integration of a speed/cadence sensor – Similar to the Trek Madone, where the sensor mounts cleanly to the NDS chainstay without the hassle of rubber bands. This makes setup and maintenance much easier.

2) High-quality thru-axle with an integrated removal tool – A design where the covers sit flush with the frame and fork, adding both functionality and aesthetics. (https://de.aliexpress.com/item/1005008359478298.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.main.13.4f6ehC5lhC5lPJ&algo_pvid=016a5eac-a290-408a-8815-4d7dcff462f7&algo_exp_id=016a5eac-a290-408a-8815-4d7dcff462f7-6&pdp_ext_f=%7B%22order%22%3A%228%22%2C%22eval%22%3A%221%22%7D&pdp_npi=4%40dis%21EUR%21194.78%2197.39%21%21%211440.68%21720.34%21%40%2112000044713324168%21sea%21DE%216019405720%21X&curPageLogUid=XH8cDlNu4Dxo&utparam-url=scene%3Asearch%7Cquery_from%3A)

3) Rubber plates at the fork ends – This would allow the fork to rest on the ground when the front wheel is removed, preventing damage.

I’m sure the community here has plenty of additional ideas—features that wouldn’t significantly increase production costs but would add real value to the frame.

Lastly, regarding pricing: As a European customer, I find it frustrating to pay an extra ~10% due to transaction fees (5% for PayPal plus unfavorable exchange rates). Offering direct bank transfers as a payment option would save me money—money I’d happily reinvest into a higher-end frame.

At the end of the day, total cost of ownership is what really matters to me.

Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts!
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: jeffrey on March 04, 2025, 04:34:37 PM
I'm continuing my search but still no results outside of the big brands.
I really can't understand why chinese manufacturers put out so many race frames that are all the same thing, and no one offers something with geometry similar to the Trek Domane
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: neobiker on March 05, 2025, 02:43:17 AM
Lightcarbon had a model [LCG072-D], but it was purchased for an exclusive licensing. I reckon it is a matter of time before they announce a new model which should cover your need.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Blueberry on March 05, 2025, 03:10:01 PM
How do people feel about the new Winspace C5 Aero? It looks vaguely interesting but I'm suspicious it might be more of that faux aero thing several brands are doing now.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Nkearb on March 05, 2025, 04:58:34 PM
How do people feel about the new Winspace C5 Aero? It looks vaguely interesting but I'm suspicious it might be more of that faux aero thing several brands are doing now.

C5 aero looks good if you want an endurance aero frame, except without the endurance geo and with no money spent on r&d or testing for aero
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: hugovl on March 19, 2025, 04:42:59 AM
Geometry attached. Size 56cm would be the first mold available in April. Since we make this frameset with high standard as couple of big brands, you could tell the details when it is available, one piece mold, mixed of T1100, 40T, 30T Toray carbon fiber. latex molding etc. The price on this frameset with handlebar won't be that cheap as our previous frameset.  But would be cheaper than some other Chinese brands.

Everything still in the works, with this mould/frame Peter? Any updates maybe?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on March 19, 2025, 05:28:23 AM
Everything still in the works, with this mould/frame Peter? Any updates maybe?
Doing the in-factory testing now, one piece molded raw finish frameset
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: bmrk on March 20, 2025, 09:20:22 AM
Doing the in-factory testing now, one piece molded raw finish frameset

Raw finish looks good Peter. What kind of ride quality the frame will offer in terms of stiffness for both front and backend?

Which is the expected weight? Is the FD mount removable? Frameset will be sold with handlebar too? Can you share more pictures?
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on March 20, 2025, 10:35:15 AM
Raw finish looks good Peter. What kind of ride quality the frame will offer in terms of stiffness for both front and backend?

Which is the expected weight? Is the FD mount removable? Frameset will be sold with handlebar too? Can you share more pictures?
I can't tell much on this new frameset at present, size 54cm would weigh around 895+/-30g (painted with the hangers and bolts mounted), yes the FD mount is removable. Frameset would be sold with our new handlebar.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: bmrk on March 21, 2025, 04:16:09 AM
I can't tell much on this new frameset at present, size 54cm would weigh around 895+/-30g (painted with the hangers and bolts mounted), yes the FD mount is removable. Frameset would be sold with our new handlebar.

Is it possible to share specs/pictures of the handlebar? Thanks!
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: PeterXu on March 22, 2025, 08:49:48 AM
Is it possible to share specs/pictures of the handlebar? Thanks!
Here it is. The handlebar will be released end of April, size 380x90 weighs around 320g including mounting bolts
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: bmrk on March 22, 2025, 02:11:53 PM
Here it is. The handlebar will be released end of April, size 380x90 weighs around 320g including mounting bolts

The 360mm-385mm, 120mm seems really interesting. Post pictures when available.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rsw42 on March 27, 2025, 03:23:48 AM
I can't tell much on this new frameset at present, size 54cm would weigh around 895+/-30g (painted with the hangers and bolts mounted), yes the FD mount is removable. Frameset would be sold with our new handlebar.

Do you already know what's the rider weight limit going to be?

I'd be happy to take a heavier frame for more durability, since I'm way to heavy...
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: Daviddavieboy on March 27, 2025, 06:58:35 AM
Do you already know what's the rider weight limit going to be?

I'd be happy to take a heavier frame for more durability, since I'm way to heavy...

 His CS-R01 is 120KG. It would likely be the same.
Title: Re: Frame req? (Aero, dropped SS, high stack, short reach)
Post by: rsw42 on March 27, 2025, 09:43:03 AM
Just realised Peter already said it would be 120kg max rider weight... better lose some weight then...

love the concept... very curious to see it becoming reality