XMCS - 2026 VRT

[pavlo.k]

Yep, that definitely helps.

But what is then the benefit of a positive stem for you?

I prefer it visually and that just seem like a more logical solution to me. Don't see the point for doing negative stem and then the wonky rised handlebars but I stay open minded. I'm willing to accept the idea behind it if someone can explain it 

I remember back in a day specialized diverge or roubaix came with rised handlebars and I just could not understand it since you could just simply flip the stem and use a regular handlebar

[CycOps]

IMHO we are all used to the looks of negativ angled stems, and a zero degree stem or a positiv angled stem looks for most of us pretty awkward on a drop bar bike.
So I understand a manufacturer takes the tradditional approach.

But nowadays we see more and more positiv angled stems beeing ridden in the velodrom (for good reasons I think, as they offer a more aerodynamic position flat on the upper bar) and we see very few "unusual" stem/handlebars on road frames, starting with Cercelo S5 (I hate this cockpit since I had to buy my son a new bar for his S5, LoL), and the new Colnago cockpit for example.
I bet we will see a lot more of this development (for good or bad, IDK) in the next years.
Untill that, a classic shaped integraded bar is problably the most reasonable cockpit from a manufacturer point of view.
As the XMSC frames will not come with a proprietary cockpit (like the S5), everybody can choose the cockpit she wants.
No reason for any complaints.

[Requiem84]

I like the aesthetics of the positive stem bar on eg the Y1RS, but only because they have the frame dropout for the stem (same for the S5 by the way).

I personally don’t like the looks on a standard non-dropout frame. In the end both solutions achieve the added stack, but the way you get there is different and it looks different visually. Personally the xmcs approach will look better on different bikes and indeed retains the same geo logic and structure.

I don’t know which option is more aero optimized, as I haven’t seen any aero data on this. JWS’ solution is because he can experiment with a separate stem/bar combo, rather than him needing to ask a brand to make a bespoke one piece handlebar. For the amount of rise he wants a positive stem will be needed anyway.

I’d be surprised if anyone likes his set-up visually though ;-).

[CycOps]

Indeed very special style and not to everyone's taste, but I like it.
JWS needs a lot of stack for his aero position, luying flat on veeeery narrow bars (now USI restricted), and if he's not giving a competitor a headbutt LoL (also UCI restricted, check google if you haven't seen the vid).
T Red/Toot from Italy going the same way at least with their track bikes.
We see the same approach on TT bikes where the arm rests are much higher than they ever have been before.

Wouldn't wonder if this is the "normal" in a few years on road bikes.

So guys leave PeterX alone, that's some nice new handel bars, don't buy if you don't like them ;-)

[toxin]

A positive stem can have a better stiffness/weight ratio as you aren't putting a double bend into a thin, relatively structurally suboptimal cross section. It might have a bit more frontal area (I'm not sure which way this one goes), but it also allows you more freedom to aerodynamically optimise the horizontal cross section of the stem. You can also more effectively maximise the side profile of the stem to make it a greater contributor to aerodynamics at higher yaw angles. Van rysel rcr-f does this.

Van Schip's position is an attempt to truly mimic a TT position (including the upwards angled forearms) on a road bike that is two sizes too small for him. If he kept the rest of his position the same and just set the bike up for horizontal forearms, as is the intended use for most bars, he would have very little extra rise. If tavelo made bikes in appropriate sizes for the Dutch market, his cockpit setup would look significantly more normal.

[CycOps]

@Toxin, without ever having spoken to van Schip and without having read an interview where he talks about his position on the bike, i don't think he'd choose a bigger frame as he already uses a forward tilted seat post (the UCI turned out to deem illegal last year when the commisaires took him out of a rece). A bigger frame would position him even more behind the BB.
Maybe here's not the right thread for this sort of discussion, but if you have insights on van Ships aero testing and position development pls share.
IMHO we see a lot of manufacturers adding a bit of stack to their frames when updating the model, due to pro riders beeing more on the tops than in the drops for their most effective earo postition.

[toxin]

Only if the bigger frame had a slacker seatpost, imo bikes should have a fixed seat angle in all sizes, but that's another matter. That still wouldn't change the fact that the bike he was on was too low and short for his size and position and that his case isn't relevant to most such discussion because  almost nobody is interested in replicating that position, even among the progressive aero position crowd.

I just don't agree with your last point, it's not a trend that I've noticed at all. Most notably cannondale lowered the stack of the newest supersix because the pros didn't like the previous one. Most times when you see pros running spacers under their stems, it's because they've already downsized in frame size.

[Lotnik]

I would like to see positive angled stem handlebars as in the Ridley Noah Fast. A different approach than Cervelo, Factor or Colnago.

[CycOps]

I just don't agree with your last point, it's not a trend that I've noticed at all. Most notably cannondale lowered the stack of the newest supersix because the pros didn't like the previous one. Most times when you see pros running spacers under their stems, it's because they've already downsized in frame size.

Yes, that's right, Cannondale lowered the stack, and I was very surprised about the geo when they released the frame.
From Tarmc SL7 to Tarmac SL8 the stack was increased, same if you compare Aeroad MY 2018 and MY 2024.
And OC pro riders choose very small frame sizes, but the're adding more spaceres nowadays, up to 30mm or even more:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/cycling-tech-components/where-have-all-the-slammed-pro-bikes-gone-five-tech-trends-from-opening-weekend/

In NL, there's someone taking the concept van Schip uses to an new frame desing:

https://morpheus-bikes.com/reppit-in-detail/

So this is not just a one man idea of a guy who's 194cm tall and can't find a big enough frame.
Especially on the track we see a lot more riders experimenting with this kind of position, maybe BC it's so easy with no cables and no integration at all at the bike.

[Serge_K]

Yes, that's right, Cannondale lowered the stack, and I was very surprised about the geo when they released the frame.

It is very hard not to regard western bike brands as pure marketing operations, these days. And i do not mean that as a compliment.

[Ludo]

I am with you. You just see the push now towards steel frames on the marketing side. That’s all it really is. Aerobike with rider, what is really the difference Frame to frame once rider in same position? It’s really all marginal and only releva

[Sakizashi]

It is very hard not to regard western bike brands as pure marketing operations, these days. And i do not mean that as a compliment.

Meh. Its definitely incremental, but put the Pogacar's Y1Rs next to the Sagan's Cannondale's next to Lance's Trek, and its pretty clear things have changed.

Yes, that's right, Cannondale lowered the stack, and I was very surprised about the geo when they released the frame.

Well, they very clearly explained that it was in a bid to get EF riders to stop sizing down to get frames with lower stack heights. It is not just about spacer stacks, but also about getting riders on bikes that are the right length for them. Based on the pro bikes I have seen from EF, they are not using setups with less stack height. They are on bars with shorter stems.

One of the great mysteries of the bike part of the internet is why people size down (like pros), buy race bikes (like pros), and then complain about the stack height being too low because they lack the elite physiology that makes up a pro. They could probably have solved some of the issues by either buying the right bike size for them from the start or buying an endurance bike and sizing down. Most people look at the size charts created by manufacturers and throw them straight into the bin. While they aren't a replacement for a bike fit, that guidance is based on the bike's design and desired handling characteristics.

I am with you. You just see the push now towards steel frames on the marketing side. That’s all it really is. Aerobike with rider, what is really the difference Frame to frame once rider in same position? It’s really all marginal and only releva

With the most love and good intentions to you and to Peter--there isn't much positional innovation with regards to the bikes that XMCS are proposing on this thread. We rarely see that coming from anywhere but from brands with teams involved in the highest level of racing. I am not suggesting that XMCS should be doing that, just that expectations should be set accordingly, and for the brands that have pushed performance through position optimization (e.g., Specialized, Ridley, Colnago), it might be worth giving them a bit of credit for their work.

[toxin]

From Tarmc SL7 to Tarmac SL8 the stack was increased, same if you compare Aeroad MY 2018 and MY 2024

Tarmac frame stack and reach remained the same, specialized just started including the headset cover in the geo chart. The aeroad went from a regular steerer and headset arrangement to a fully proprietary system that includes the handlebar, so you can't compare it one-to-one because you would have to take how the handlebar affect the location of the contact points into the equation.

And OC pro riders choose very small frame sizes, but the're adding more spaceres nowadays, up to 30mm or even more:

Yeah, but these extreme stacks are outliers. The norm in the pro peloton is still slammed or very few spacers, on a sized down bike and long stem. The companies are actually providing pros with bike geometries that aren't fit for purpose because they are stuck in last century's understandings of bike fit.

https://morpheus-bikes.com/reppit-in-detail/

So this is not just a one man idea of a guy who's 194cm tall and can't find a big enough frame.
Especially on the track we see a lot more riders experimenting with this kind of position, maybe BC it's so easy with no cables and no integration at all at the bike.

And no hate to Arno, but I think this is a misguided endeavour, born from a man's dream of making a bike of his own, rather than making something the market is looking for. I hope him well, but he could've achieved most of his goals without such a large monetary investment by just making extreme rise handlebars.

[Takiyaki]

Meh. Its definitely incremental, but put the Pogacar's Y1Rs next to the Sagan's Cannondale's next to Lance's Trek, and its pretty clear things have changed.

Well, they very clearly explained that it was in a bid to get EF riders to stop sizing down to get frames with lower stack heights. It is not just about spacer stacks, but also about getting riders on bikes that are the right length for them. Based on the pro bikes I have seen from EF, they are not using setups with less stack height. They are on bars with shorter stems.

One of the great mysteries of the bike part of the internet is why people size down (like pros), buy race bikes (like pros), and then complain about the stack height being too low because they lack the elite physiology that makes up a pro. They could probably have solved some of the issues by either buying the right bike size for them from the start or buying an endurance bike and sizing down. Most people look at the size charts created by manufacturers and throw them straight into the bin. While they aren't a replacement for a bike fit, that guidance is based on the bike's design and desired handling characteristics.

With the most love and good intentions to you and to Peter--there isn't much positional innovation with regards to the bikes that XMCS are proposing on this thread. We rarely see that coming from anywhere but from brands with teams involved in the highest level of racing. I am not suggesting that XMCS should be doing that, just that expectations should be set accordingly, and for the brands that have pushed performance through position optimization (e.g., Specialized, Ridley, Colnago), it might be worth giving them a bit of credit for their work.

I have pro-"ish" sizing because of my anthropometry (I think my wingspan is like 10cm longer than my height). Ive tried sizing up and just didnt like the handling. I dont know how or why but for me a ~53-54cm just feels "right" compared to a 55-56cm, even considering Im running a 130mm stem on my R5 clone.

I do think that road bike geometry has lagged substantially behind road bike fit, and while I love that these new frames are here I do think it would have been worth gambling with the aero frame to try some more modern + progressive geometry. Basically balancing the UCI limits, getting the rider as far forward over the BB as possible, and doing whatever to enable the horizontal forearm position comfortably and efficiently. Which to me seems like basically mimicking TT bikes, but w/way less carbon, more tire clearance and the ability to run conventional stems.

Im itching to do my next build, but Im kind of hesitant because I know the geometry and tire clearance I want, but nobody makes it. This does feel like a missed opportunity IMO.

[hubba]

I'm between 56cm and 58cm sizes and I've always sized down. Wingspan 11cm longer than my height 186cm and very long legs. I might try sizing up this time if I end up getting the aero bike. Go a bit higher stack and longer as the trend is now. But that means waiting for the XXL which comes last.

56cm frames fit me perfectly but I have 22cm of seatpost visible and at least 2cm of spacers I think a 58 will look better.