New Tantan Seraph X71 - Replica Factor Ostro VAM V2 (UDH)

[Rebel_Yell]

Oh sorry, I am not an employee.

You should contact +86 136 9093 8214

My post was just a copy paste whatsapp message i got from them.

Sorry about that.  Much appreciated!!

[Rebel_Yell]

This frame has the same inconsistencies with the real thing that the Fauxtros on the counterfeit thread has. Seat stay junction and BB area are a slightly different shape. Fork dimensions and hose inlet are off.

However, the one thing that stood out to me is their UDH implementation. The pics aren't good, but this doesn't look like it's compatible with the direct mount road XPLR RDs. The RD hanger also doesn't appear to be able to rotate back, as the stop feature on the frame is positioned above the center axis UDH frame attachment interface. I kind of want someone to buy one to see if this is really the case, but if it were the case, your frame could quickly become a write-off.

There is a video of this frame as a complete bike on Instagram now using the Wheeltop Groupset. Wonder if you see this video can you give your opinion on your question/concern above?  I am interested in your thoughts on this.  I do not understand exactly what you are saying about the topic so will refrain from my thoughts. 

Thanks for sharing yours concerns as this is a frame I am interested in. 

[Tasthal]

For the TanTan X65 it took almost half a year between announcement and the first painted frame pics appearing. This one is announced painted and a complete bike is shared within a week. Maybe a different marketing strategy, but given the similarities with the counterfeits, I feel like they might be buying this one in.

[Sakizashi]

There is a video of this frame as a complete bike on Instagram now using the Wheeltop Groupset. Wonder if you see this video can you give your opinion on your question/concern above?  I am interested in your thoughts on this.  I do not understand exactly what you are saying about the topic so will refrain from my thoughts. 

Thanks for sharing yours concerns as this is a frame I am interested in.

See the attachments here. There are a few different types of UDH attachments. All of them allow for rotation and have a stop at two positions. First pic is this bike, it’s not a great photo but I noted the issue. Second is the closest reference I could find in the UDH documentation. Third is the GR201 and its UDH design, which is different, 4th is the reference for that type of design.

I find it pretty confusing that they would be using two different types of UDH but at least they arent inventing a new “mini UDH” like Cervelo and Factor did. Before ordering this frame, I would ask for a close up photo of the UDH / drive side dropout, and if possible, verify that it can rotate properly and meet UDH specs.

[Gus]

See the attachments here. There are a few different types of UDH attachments. All of them allow for rotation and have a stop at two positions. First pic is this bike, it’s not a great photo but I noted the issue. Second is the closest reference I could find in the UDH documentation. Third is the GR201 and its UDH design, which is different, 4th is the reference for that type of design.

I find it pretty confusing that they would be using two different types of UDH but at least they arent inventing a new “mini UDH” like Cervelo and Factor did. Before ordering this frame, I would ask for a close up photo of the UDH / drive side dropout, and if possible, verify that it can rotate properly and meet UDH specs.

I’m a bit confused by this tbh and would like to understand more about your concern over the UDH. I have a Lynskey frame with UDH that is 100% working with SRAM direct mount (it had the new XPLR 13 speed mounted before I took it off to use on another bike), and with the UDH hanger on, it looks exactly like how the TanTan frame looks with the hangar. So I am curious how you can tell from just a picture whether the UDH works or not…

[Sakizashi]

I am not going to comment on Lynskey's implementation, and that pic is at an angle that hides the potential geometry of the stops anyway. I am also NOT saying the X71 is incompatible. I am saying that if I were buying this, I would want to check it before making a purchase.

Attached is a photo of the LTK266-D-SL I ordered. This is the exact implementation used on the TanTan GR201 and one that is very common on the lower-cost carbon frames from what I have seen. You can see the stop in this design.

Of course, there are other viable designs as shown in the reference I attached previously. My point was that the photo appears to show a design that doesn't match either previous designs used by TanTan or any of the references. That to me is cause for concern, particularly given the issues with the X68, etc.

[Gus]

I am not going to comment on Lynskey's implementation, and that pic is at an angle that hides the potential geometry of the stops anyway. I am also NOT saying the X71 is incompatible. I am saying that if I were buying this, I would want to check it before making a purchase.

Attached is a photo of the LTK266-D-SL I ordered. This is the exact implementation used on the TanTan GR201 and one that is very common on the lower-cost carbon frames from what I have seen. You can see the stop in this design.

Of course, there are other viable designs as shown in the reference I attached previously. My point was that the photo appears to show a design that doesn't match either previous designs used by TanTan or any of the references. That to me is cause for concern, particularly given the issues with the X68, etc.

Understood. I would guess that the implementation is the "hangerless interface design variant 5" in your previous post. It doesn't have an obvious protruding stop that's visible. If I take off the hangar off my Lynskey, the dropout underneath shows that geometry. The issue is that when the hangar is attached, the hangar itself obscures the geometry of the dropout underneath (regardless of the angle of the picture).

If I'm not mistaken, TanTan does use this exact same implementation on their X67 frame. https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugkxi7ci86-YLfd12DqZgekY5cogUuvh04tV

Given the speculation that TanTan doesn't actually make some of these frames but are actually just reselling them from other makers of replica frames, I wouldn't be surprised by the different UDH implementations, which may explain why the GR201 implementation is different.

[Sakizashi]

Understood. I would guess that the implementation is the "hangerless interface design variant 5" in your previous post. It doesn't have an obvious protruding stop that's visible. If I take off the hangar off my Lynskey, the dropout underneath shows that geometry. The issue is that when the hangar is attached, the hangar itself obscures the geometry of the dropout underneath (regardless of the angle of the picture).

If I'm not mistaken, TanTan does use this exact same implementation on their X67 frame. https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugkxi7ci86-YLfd12DqZgekY5cogUuvh04tV

Given the speculation that TanTan doesn't actually make some of these frames but are actually just reselling them from other makers of replica frames, I wouldn't be surprised by the different UDH implementations, which may explain why the GR201 implementation is different.

This is an X67 and IDK maybe it works? Still looks really odd to me, but surely someone could confirm. I would still be asking this question before I bought the frame. Also, the brake mounts seem barely ovalized on these frames!

[Rebel_Yell]

This is an X67 and IDK maybe it works? Still looks really odd to me, but surely someone could confirm. I would still be asking this question before I bought the frame. Also, the brake mounts seem barely ovalized on these frames!

All this talk is way over my head.  Are you saying that No groupset will work on that hanger or a specific groupset will not work with this type hanger. I plan to run Shimano. 

Thanks for any help you can be.

[Rebel_Yell]

Frame only supports DI2 groupsets per TT Rep.  In case anyone didn’t know that already.

[Sakizashi]

All this talk is way over my head.  Are you saying that No groupset will work on that hanger or a specific groupset will not work with this type hanger. I plan to run Shimano. 

Thanks for any help you can be.

Sorry, I should have led with that. I would primarily be concerned about the dropout being easily damaged in the event of a minor crash or other incident. Second, the RD would be more susceptible to damage.

I think incompatibility would be limited to SRAM's 1x13 groups. I don't think there are physical shape issues with a standard UDH hanger. You may encounter compatibility issues with UDH Shimano direct-mount type hangers or experience trouble with the B gap if the forward stop isn't in the correct position, but I don't see an obvious issue there.

[OlHag Cyclismo]

Just ordered this frame. I built up a TT-x68 frame at the beginning of the year and it has been great. Looking forward to adding this frame to the stable. I’ll post weights when I receive it, whenever that is.

[patliean1]

Wonder if they offer a 15mm setback post. 0mm is a big no no for myself

[Gus]

Just ordered this frame. I built up a TT-x68 frame at the beginning of the year and it has been great. Looking forward to adding this frame to the stable. I’ll post weights when I receive it, whenever that is.

Really interested to see how it turns out! My next bike build is likely going to be either the X68 or this one... so hard to decide.

[gandalftw]

just a question , why tantan and not this ? https://yohobike.com/product/2024-factor-ostro-vam-2-0-carbon-bike-frame-with-handlebar-disc-brake-crf04-2/
you can buy without the decals if it disturb you, supports wider tires, lighter, ceramic speed slt headset and 1:1.