XM Carbon Speed Race Frame - The wish list

[Pistonbroke]

Rumour has it Peter and Co. at XMCS are going to be making a race orientated frame in the future....
So what would your fast frame wish list be?

Peter, if you're out there, and the rumour is true, I'd like something along the lines of a Ridley Noah / Noah Fast
Steep seat angle, long reach, low bb and aero. UDH. 34mm clearance.
Not asking for much

[neobiker]

BMC Teammachine R

https://bmc-switzerland.com/pages/platform/teammachine-r-road-racing-bikes

I would pay 900-1200 USD for such frame.

And if I can really ask, I would prefer a triathlon frame as there is a gap in the Chinese offering as of now at the 600-1500 USD price point. (BMC Speedmachine in this case, or Canyon Speedmax).

[Pistonbroke]

The Gran Turismo barely got released, earlier in the summer the moulds weren't even available in all sizes.

No harm  in daydreaming:-)

[Requiem84]

Just take a look at the latest Mondince aero frame.

Light and aero cues..

[voidptr]

Something like the Intropy Speedster SSR (without the ISP).
- common standards (UDH, T47(A)/BSA, ACR)
- minimal frontal area
- bayonet fork
- 35mm clearance
- high BB drop, steep STA
- ti hardware
- 160mm front brake (no adapter needed)
- cool small things like hidden thru axles

[Sakizashi]

I really like the idea of an affordable bayonet fork-type bike with a focus on low frontal area in development. But, I think it's essential to step back and not jump on the fit more important than design wagon.

If the goal is to grow into a brand that has products raced at the highest level or even is common among top amateurs, +25mm in stack and a shorter reach is a bad idea as a rule for a race bike, particularly if you are also playing with reach and front-end geometry. An aero endurance bike is an oxymoron, and there are plenty of aero-looking endurance bikes that customers can buy whose main function is to look the part.

If there are the resources for it, I would probably spend a lot of time thinking about the cockpit design and how to make the bike more adjustable than today's bikes, using the differences that an S5-like bayonet front end allows. The spacer system is different; the max and min spacer height might also be different. You might also gain the ability to add stack and reach in two places, both between the stem and the bike and between the bar and the stem.

[thorbens]

I really like the idea of an affordable bayonet fork-type bike with a focus on low frontal area in development. But, I think it's essential to step back and not jump on the fit more important than design wagon.

If the goal is to grow into a brand that has products raced at the highest level or even is common among top amateurs, +25mm in stack and a shorter reach is a bad idea as a rule for a race bike, particularly if you are also playing with reach and front-end geometry. An aero endurance bike is an oxymoron, and there are plenty of aero-looking endurance bikes that customers can buy whose main function is to look the part.

If there are the resources for it, I would probably spend a lot of time thinking about the cockpit design and how to make the bike more adjustable than today's bikes, using the differences that an S5-like bayonet front end allows. The spacer system is different; the max and min spacer height might also be different. You might also gain the ability to add stack and reach in two places, both between the stem and the bike and between the bar and the stem.

Adjustable stack like Cervelo S5 combined with reach adjustment like the Simplon Pride II would be great for adjustability cockpitwise. Maybe three seatposts (?) (normal 25 mm and zero offset, and an additional forward offset to mimic a steep seat angle?)

[mark335]

Evolve Cima, Cannondale Supersix looking frame

[Finiesta]

I would like to go all out aero:
-High BB drop (75-80 on 58 size)
-Fork bayonet type its possible and more important than that a deep and wide fork (like the new Factor Superone)
-Long reach 415-425 on 58 (like Dare Va-afo or ridley noah)
-A way to keep the stems out of the wind like Ridley Noah or Dare
-Slack head tube angle and steep seat tube angle
-Deepest headtube possible with also deep tubes on the seat area like Cannondale Systemsix
-TT type ajustable seatpost
-Wider Downtube where the bottle mounts go to hide the bottles from the wind so it is more aero.
-32-34 mm tire clearance
Finally,  i would like to see any brand to offer apart from the normal type handlebars make some handlebars design for breakaway like Speeco used to have with the ABB v1 something with 110-120 mm reach and 32-34 cm wide at the hoods for all out TT or breakway specialists.

[toxin]

Lets not make more bikes that have bayonet forks for the sake of having bayonet forks. You could see a million bikes like that at the eastern shows this year. These are usually a normal carbon steerer plus bayonet. This doesn't achieve the main advantage of a bayonet fork, which is to get rid of the carbon steerer and get a narrower front end like STROMM RAKTT, Cervelo S5, Colnago Y1RS and TT1, Factor Super One and Hanzo (track). A bayonet also adds a ridge in the cross section profile of the HT which is not great for aero and has to be carefully designed around. It can also give extra benefits when it comes to handlebar design and fit, but I imagine it would be off the table because it's too expensive of a system to develop properly for a brand like this, so it's better to just have a normal, deep HT that's as narrow as feasible.

I'm not sure how much integrating the stem with the top tube, like Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 and Dare VA-AFO without an accompanying stem to integrate properly with, which would just be even more expensive.

Not a fan of super deep rear ends any more, as they add a lot of weight, kill comfort and have limited aero effectiveness. Maybe best to do it like STROMM, make the upper part of the seat tube deeper and the lower part, seat and chain stays skinny. Maybe a seat stay design similar to (new) Argon 18 Nitrogen, Colnago TT1, Specialized Shiv as it can potentially improve rear end compliance and aero. Also don't make a down tube that hugs the front tyre like a lot of traditional aero bikes have. It's great at low yaw in a wind tunnel, but it breaks down with steering input, real world turbulence and yaw angles. Seeing more and more aero bikes with wider down tubes too, so maybe not a bad idea to give it some bottle shielding design.

In terms of geometry I'd like something along the lines of Dare VA-AFO for stack and reach, with a long-ish front centre, a steep seat tube (75° f.e.) and BB drop of 75 mm or more.

Please for the love god of no T47, it does nothing better than BSA with a proper BB. If it has to be T47, at least let it be T47-68. Prefferably no hidden thru axles, so that the thread inserts can be repaired and the thru axle removed if you fuck up one side of it. Can just make covers for them instead, like Seka. UDH probably a good idea too.

[Sakizashi]

If there is a limitation on aero development, I fail to see how deep forks are likely to help. Even on the latest track bikes, you still see a wide spread of fork designs from Argon 18 through to the Look bikes, as well as a lot in between, like the Koga and Canyon bikes. It's not like there was consistency in terms of which are faster and who won on what designs in the last olympics.

Let's be real for a second. Deep forks on bikes that are not developed with aero testing along the way are just an aesthetic. It's just too hard to understand what interaction you will or won't be getting from the wheel, particularly near the fork crown, to eyeball a design that you can feel confident would reduce drag. However, if you can reduce the frontal area of the bike/rider system with a bayonet design, I would go for it and bet that it would be faster in validation done after the fact.

The other thing you can do is use the bayonet design to make an adapter plate to use regular stems eccentric to the steerer axis. This could allow you to flip its orientation and change the reach of attached handlebars, effectively reducing the number of SKUs you need, offsetting some of the increased development cost. It would be trickier, but you could change both the reach and the angle at which the stem attaches, giving you a shorter, higher option and a longer, lower option. This could allow three frame sizes to cover a range that would otherwise require five or six. Or use four frames to match models claiming to offer the most sizes.

There is a lot of room to be creative with bayonet forks that could be worth the effort for the right brand.

[Mario kart]

I think he just needs two layup options

A cheap T700 tank and a premium T1100 option. Not sure if he could achieve this with one mold to cut down on production costs. Seems they are able to do so with their wheels

[rsw42]

Since I had some boys in the team drooling over my GT frameset yesterday...

A UCI-Sticker would be great... They are in some competitions where that's needed...

[PeterXu]

Since I had some boys in the team drooling over my GT frameset yesterday...

A UCI-Sticker would be great... They are in some competitions where that's needed...

We would get our US trademark approved soon, hopefully mid-Oct. Then we would arrange UCI approved stuff on our wheels and frameset.

[brain]

We would get our US trademark approved soon, hopefully mid-Oct. Then we would arrange UCI approved stuff on our wheels and frameset.

That is great information! I'm in the market for a new race frame, and due to race regulations, it absolutely has to be on the UCI approved list.
For those who have more knowledge than me, what is the usual timeline for a manufacturer to get a frame approved by the UCI? I've heard it can be a long process, but I'm trying to get a more concrete idea.