LTK266-D-SL, race frame, 680g, <800g w/paint & metal parts (M), fits 35mm+ tires

[Takiyaki]

Im curious as well. Im not worried about how its going to ride, it's an upgrade over my first 2 bikes and outside of my weight Im not a demanding rider. Will be curious to hear how it is to people who are more particular. I will prob do a Youtube video on it once it is built, seems like nobody has made anything for it.

[bedampft]

I see that you've crankset Magene Teo with powermeter Geoid...
On my current bike, I have the Magene PES P515 crankset, and on the new bike, I'd like to put the Magene TEO. Could I transfer the Magene power meter to the TEO crankset and buy a Geoid or Thinkrider power meter to install on the Magene PES crankset?

Yes. Geoid PM is just the old Magene PES505. Same interface as the 515. Thats was also the reason I took the TEO crankarms.

Please expand, because people here have said it rides like a giant tcr and that's historically the gold standard of bike for the mountains. So what's not to like?

I've had about 15 Giant TCRs in the last 10 years. Rim, Disc, as well as a few cheap ones for winter riding and a lot of SL versions. The 266 being discribed as a TCR like bike is what made me interested in it.

At the time I loved my TCRs and how I build them. But my fit changed of the last 2 years. Running 165mm cranks, sitting more forward, 360mm dropbars. I tough, maybe I can fit myself on this dated, but familiar geomtry again, but the old ways don't work for me anymore. Especially when fitted with the same modern parts as on my other bikes. As soon as the road points up a bit, I'm losing momentum. Even on steep climbs, and I love me some steep climbs, with more than 16% or even 20%+ the 6,3kg 266 is slower and need more effort than my other bikes with 6,8kg or even the Aerobike with 7,1kg.

The 266 feels like a very light endurance bike for me, wich is nice for the slow social rides with friends, but not what I was after when buying it.
And sadly enough: I'll also sell a new Gen 9 TCR SL frameset now because of this. No point in keeping it in storage for the future.

Now I'm looking for a lightweight frame with long front center, steep seatangle, and long reach.

[klrdd]

This is interesting. The geometry change you're describing - long front center, long reach, steep seat tube angle - is something ive only seen with the progressive aero bikes. The exception would be the new ridley climbing bike, which has a 76 degree seat tube angle across sizes and w longer front center https://www.cyclingweekly.com/products/we-dont-believe-in-the-one-bike-for-everything-philosophy-ridleys-6-2kg-falcn-rs-officially-breaks-cover

For what its worth, in my size L, the LTK geo is very close to the 2026 Lab71 in size 56. I guess the current year lab71 is an endurance bike now 

I am very curious how this new progresive ridley climbs, because like you i have moved to a forward position with short cranks. Also in the process of converting my old rim brake bmc to an even more progressive position - got an aftermarket zero offset seat post, swapped a 120/-17 stem for a 130/-7, and 165mm cranks (have always run narrow bars and saddle slammed forward) - so it will be interesting to see, with that setup, how it climbs compared to the longteng.

Sounds like it's less that its not like a tcr and more that you've moved on from the staid, established geometry in favor of the new progressive trend, which is only now reaching climbing type frames. Makes sense, and I'm curious too!

[Serge_K]

Interesting. So it does ride like a TCR but you want something from the future.
What frames are you looking at and why? It's an interesting evolution and I'm somewhere on that journey myself.
I'm trying to solve for high stack, large tyre clearance (35C), geo from the future, aero, and affordable. It's tough

[Sakizashi]

I am very curious how this new progresive ridley climbs, because like you i have moved to a forward position with short cranks. Also in the process of converting my old rim brake bmc to an even more progressive position - got an aftermarket zero offset seat post, swapped a 120/-17 stem for a 130/-7, and 165mm cranks (have always run narrow bars and saddle slammed forward) - so it will be interesting to see, with that setup, how it climbs compared to the longteng.

Sounds like it's less that it's not like a TCR and more that you've moved on from the staid, established geometry in favor of the new progressive trend, which is only now reaching climbing-type frames. Makes sense, and I'm curious too!

Road.cc has a perspective: https://road.cc/feature/ridley-falcn-rs-2-0-first-ride-review

Given the title: "A climbing masterpiece: A first ride review of the all-new Ridley Falcn RS 2.0 lightweight climbing bike" and the slug, which calls it "A game changer for riders"--which was probably the original title that was changed by editorial, you can guess the reviewer was a huge fan. Worth noting that the bike had a 36cm bar, but the reviewer has been a fan of narrow bars for a while, so that was already accepted, and I am guessing he is well adapted to the change. I 100% prefer my custom Ti road bike to my 266 for anything that is a hard effort. It is a progressive road geo, not that different than the Ridley Falcon 2.0- which is the closest comp to date. The main difference is that I went with a 75-degree STA to keep the flexibility to use a 25mm setback post for a more or less traditional saddle position, vs. the custom 15mm forward offset one I am currently using. The saddle position with a zero offset post would be most natural on a 76-degree STA like the Ridley. I also have about 2mm lower BB drop, 5mm shorter stays, and a similarly small difference with more reach. It's close enough that I would probably buy the Ridley off the shelf rather than get this geo made again if something bad happened to that bike.

For me, the progressive geo handles better, is more aero, and I climb faster. That said, as one of the louder voices advocating for this geo for nearly 5 years now, I've tried to keep that perspective off this thread, since it hasn't been relevant to the review of the 266 SL until now.

I like my 266 SL for what it is to me: a TCR like bike I can ride with CX tires / do some CX and commuting. It's so versatile for everything from long endurance rides on mixed surfaces to easy singletrack to hopping in a paceline.

If LTK or Permeants is reading this thread: while I would be happy to share the geo charts I have developed, I think taking the deflection-based development process you used for the 266 SL and applying it to the Falcon 2.0 geometry would make a very nice bike. If you could make the HT narrower in the center and 2-3cm deeper. That would be nice. Also, a slightly deeper/more aero seat tube would be nice too, but wouldn't make that change if it affects ride quality.