Author Topic: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe  (Read 294045 times)

Sebastian

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2025, 01:04:53 PM »
That seatpost makes my back hurt from only looking at it. It looks like the Tan Tan X38 but even fatter. If it rides anything like the X38, it’s a hard pass for me. It looks cool, though. So kudos for that.

Sakizashi

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2025, 01:06:05 PM »
Wild. Velobuild seems to be hanging out in the places where people discuss STR and whether or not it should be the same across sizes or be fit to a curve.

What this means is that the small sizes have a relatively normal "race" geometry, while the larger ones are a bit on the long side.

patliean1

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2025, 01:19:52 PM »
If it rides anything like the X38, it’s a hard pass for me.

Literally my only concern haha. I think we probably already know the answer to this. But I keep telling myself: "no this one will be different."

It's why I finally stopped dating bartenders, hairdressers, and club go-go dancers.

Sebastian

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2025, 02:20:32 PM »
Literally my only concern haha. I think we probably already know the answer to this. But I keep telling myself: "no this one will be different."

It's why I finally stopped dating bartenders, hairdressers, and club go-go dancers.

:D
It's unlikely that there's any special sauce in the carbon layup of this frame, I guess. So it might just ride exactly the way it looks.
Also, the ST angle is steep to begin with. Given how long the reach is on the bigger sizes, you'd probably run the saddle further forward which increases the effective ST angle even more. That's not gonna help with compliance.
Probably a cool crit frame if you ride it on smooth tarmac, though. I'm curious to see the actual frame built up and ridden. And I really like that VB are trying to do their own thing with stuff like this and their latest aero gravel frame.

meysow

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2025, 02:44:38 PM »
Pretty cool design ! Reminds me of Van Rysel RCR-F with those big fat aero looking tubes.

And according to the enthusiasm on this thread, looks like china needs to develop this aero trend, cause it seems a lot of people are hyped about it.

JustinFox

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2025, 10:45:38 PM »
Damn that looks awesome!

Can anyone confirm whether or not it's an original design?

Geometry for small is bang on my size 52 SL8.
Instagram: @justinfoxau

voidptr

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2025, 11:44:32 PM »
progressive geometry  :o

Sakizashi

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2025, 11:56:08 PM »
progressive geometry  :o

In the road sense, this bike is not that. The Dare VA-AFO and the Noah Fast 3.0 are examples of that. This is just consistent Stack to Reach Ratio or small bike fit for all. It's a very ordinary race bike geo in sizes 52 and 49.

voidptr

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2025, 12:38:49 AM »
In the road sense, this bike is not that. The Dare VA-AFO and the Noah Fast 3.0 are examples of that. This is just consistent Stack to Reach Ratio or small bike fit for all. It's a very ordinary race bike geo in sizes 52 and 49.
My understanding of progressive geometry is that the BB is effectively shifted rearward, which results in a steeper STA, longer WB/FC, and reach.
It's essentially slamming your saddle forward done the right way, without making the bike too front-heavy.

Sakizashi

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2025, 01:59:16 AM »
My understanding of progressive geometry is that the BB is effectively shifted rearward, which results in a steeper STA, longer WB/FC, and reach.
It's essentially slamming your saddle forward done the right way, without making the bike too front-heavy.


Are you looking at just the larger 2 sizes? The elements you identify are not very different than a Tarmac SL8 for the smallest three sizes. The larger two sizes do break from the norm, but this is because they chose not to steepen the front, kept the same STA, and the STR ratio is roughly the same. This bike is aggressive, but not to the point of requiring a different fit vs. something more traditional.

The progressive road fit is not usually defined as you did. It’s about shifting the rider forward and down relative to the BB. The bike fitting elements of that fit also involve shorter cranks and a lower saddle mitigate the effect of a forward position forcing a rider is “reach back” during the pedal stroke and loss of glute activation. The upside of doing this is aero. A lot of aero for some riders. Like a knocking .05 or more off your CDA in your aero position.

You are right that to make this work you need a steeper effective STA. 74 degrees is good for large sizes, but pretty standard for small and medium frames on race frames. Half the sizes of the Colnago V5RS have a STA > 74 deg.The seatpost clamp design will also play a role here. Ideally you also extend out the FC, drop the BB, and/or shrink the RC to restore the weight balance usually targeting something like the 60/40 rear bias. This bike has a BB on the lower end of standard, and a very safe 410mm RC.

If you are looking at the larger two sizes, this bike does have a longer FC and reach, but it still falls short of the Noah and VA AFO. For the same reach, the Noah fast is either 2.5cm or 5cm lower. I think the Dare is something like 1cm lower and 1cm longer. That a pretty significant amount of elbow room in both cases. This bike might help you a bit, but you are probably still slamming the seat all the way forward and using a long stem to get into that progressive position.

voidptr

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2025, 02:34:09 AM »
Correct, I'm only looking at the larger sizes (in general), and the geometry on the size 550 is exactly what I've been waiting for.

- Steep STA (74°): positions you directly over the BB
- Short RC (410mm): keeps it nimble and responsive (note: SRAM recommends 415mm+ for 13sp UDH)
- Long WB (1015mm) & FC (616mm): stable and planted  (with no toe overlap)

The slacker HTA (72˚) also means that you can run a shorter stem (compared to traditional frames) while having the same handling characteristics.
I also like the fact that is less aggressive (regarding STR) than the VA-AFO or Noah Fast.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2025, 02:36:46 AM by voidptr »

JustinFox

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2025, 02:36:11 AM »
Curious about the cockpit too. Are we expecting a stem like the Cervelo S5?
Instagram: @justinfoxau

tgarne

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2025, 05:23:01 AM »
Just pulled the trigger in size 58.

No plans for the build yet, i just love the deep tubes 😅

toxin

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2025, 05:38:56 AM »
Can anyone confirm whether or not it's an original design?

I'd call myself pretty knowledgeable and I've never seen anything that this could be a direct copy of more than any other bike.

Curious about the cockpit too. Are we expecting a stem like the Cervelo S5?

There's no reason for velobuild to do anything like that, they're not trying to set wind tunnel benchmarks or perform under a pro. They need to sell to people with lower budgets and a proprietary cockpit would kill interest from most of their customer base.

They've also uploades some more renders and there's one that shows a completely normal cockpit.

massarob

Re: Velobuild VB-R-368 Aeroframe
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2025, 08:20:17 AM »
It looks like (EDIT aka "resembles", not "it's", for the geometry_nazi ) a Van Rysel RCR-F  8) with a chunkier rear triangle
« Last Edit: July 11, 2025, 10:33:58 AM by massarob »