XMCS - 2026 VRT

[patliean1]

INCOMING!

YouTube Search: FASTER Than Cervelo S5 & Quick Pro - XM CarbonSpeed VRT

27 minutes long 

[bsharp77]

Well….thats this evenings viewing sorted! :-)

[Rebel_Yell]

INCOMING!

YouTube Search: FASTER Than Cervelo S5 & Quick Pro - XM CarbonSpeed VRT

27 minutes long 

Great job Patty!! Loved the review and not shocked by the results. I am currently riding a XMCS R01 and love it!!

[Dareios]

INCOMING!

YouTube Search: FASTER Than Cervelo S5 & Quick Pro - XM CarbonSpeed VRT

27 minutes long 

Great job dude! I do think you have a point when it comes to the prog fit not being for everyone, more glute and even hamstring fominant guys might just need a saddle position with more setback.
I always used to be a skinny kid with a big, muscular ass, so finding a position that lets me use those big cheeks in an optimal way might be more important.

[patliean1]

Peak Torque just messaged me:

“You can pay Silverstone for the results you want to see.”

Do what you want with that information 

[Dareios]

Peak Torque just messaged me:

“You can pay Silverstone for the results you want to see.”

Do what you want with that information 

I guess that depends a lot on the testing protocol, but this one and the Seka Spear one look solid.
Rider on bike is imo where it gets complicate.

[Serge_K]

Peak Torque just messaged me:

“You can pay Silverstone for the results you want to see.”

Do what you want with that information 

These tests reports never look as strict and standardized as you'd want them to be.
2 important points: the test w rider doesn't include S5 + reserve wheels + rider. I would want to see that, vs VRT + XMCS wheels + rider.
That being said, i think it's fair to say that the frame is very fast. It looks like an S5, the head tube is narrow and deep, the fork is wide and deep, the down tube looks good, there's nothing in the frame design that raises suspicion.
I suspect that the S5 + reserve is faster than the VRT, BUT probably by a small margin, and i'm sure AF not spending S5 money on a frame

As far as i'm concerned, the crux is tyre clearance. The S5 can't take 35C. If the VRT can genuinely take 35C (i thought it was 32C as per earlier messages in this thread?), which means 38-40mm measured tyre & a FD, then you have something that's future proof for the next 5y, using a conti gp5000 35C on a wide rim.

[Requiem84]

These tests reports never look as strict and standardized as you'd want them to be.
2 important points: the test w rider doesn't include S5 + reserve wheels + rider. I would want to see that, vs VRT + XMCS wheels + rider.
That being said, i think it's fair to say that the frame is very fast. It looks like an S5, the head tube is narrow and deep, the fork is wide and deep, the down tube looks good, there's nothing in the frame design that raises suspicion.
I suspect that the S5 + reserve is faster than the VRT, BUT probably by a small margin, and i'm sure AF not spending S5 money on a frame

As far as i'm concerned, the crux is tyre clearance. The S5 can't take 35C. If the VRT can genuinely take 35C (i thought it was 32C as per earlier messages in this thread?), which means 38-40mm measured tyre & a FD, then you have something that's future proof for the next 5y, using a conti gp5000 35C on a wide rim.

We had aero engineers from Scope and Audi F1 at our booth, and they wanted to know every little detail about the wind tunnel testing. The general feedback that I’m getting from people here at Eurobike that claim to ‘know’ engineering/aero is that both the wheels and VRT simply have sound aero basics. Perhaps not the (iterative) refinement of some other brands, but as an aero concept they have simply gone in the right direction.

As for tire clearance, the P Zero SL R now mounted, measure 31.5mm and we seem to have about 8mm+ clearance at the rear. So 38mm WAM may fit - TBC after Eurobike. I think it will look a lot better, as it will close the gap to the DT a bit.

[jfcb]

I have many questions with the test results one of which you already addressed with peak torque's comment.
The statement faster than, as fast, slower than...great as a YouTube title to draw the attention, but very irrelevant after looking at the high level test set-up  results as explained in the video.
The only conclusion I draw is that the frame is in line with the bettter aero bikes currently on the market.

[Requiem84]

I have many questions with the test results one of which you already addressed with peak torque's comment.
The statement faster than, as fast, slower than...great as a YouTube title to draw the attention, but very irrelevant after looking at the high level test set-up  results as explained in the video.
The only conclusion I draw is that the frame is in line with the bettter aero bikes currently on the market.

I think that is a very fair conclusion.

As for ‘paying to get the results you want’, surely they’d then also ensured the VRT did better at bike only testing, where the S5 tested a bit faster.

I find it quite complicated how to share the wind tunnel story. In my mind, the story is that the VRT has world tour performance. It truly is a fast bike. But if you put that statement out there, people tell me: ok, if you say that show me the test results - in full. Then - like Patty - the results are shared and the conversation goes ‘how can it be faster than an S5 (with rider)?!’.

It’s difficult to do this right, as it’s quite complicated and nuanced. And in the era we live in, people prefer black and white.

[alfiomotrambo]

I was surprised, not in a positive way, when Patty showed a Word document with numbers that, to me, seemed random.

I’m not saying they are false, or that Patty didn’t make a good video. I actually watched the whole 25+ minutes with interest. I’m just saying that I would have appreciated some kind of document or source that verified and confirmed the data.

[Leobeo98]

In my mind, the story is that the VRT has world tour performance. It truly is a fast bike.

That should be the bottom line and can be marketed by XMCS as such, if the test was set out as pure validation.
In that case the "buy your result" spin wouldn't make much sense.
Regardless the result is impressive, especially with their own wheels.

[Cnasta]

I haven't watched the video (will do later today), but maybe someone can help me guestimate the weight for the built with this frame:

VRT, sizse 54 (178 tall)
XMCS wheels (1250ish)
Older 11sp ultegra Di2 with ultegra or campa rotors
ryet-style printed sadle
crank + powermeter + 52/36 rings --> to be decided (magene, with passquest wheels)

I'd like to know if 6,8-7,1 kilo is realistic

[Requiem84]

Weights as measured on my own scale for the Eurobike VRT (6.48kg excl pedals).

Frame, painted, no hardware except bolts: 961.9g
Fork, uncut: 470.0g
Fork, cut: 439.0g
Seatpost, uncut: 192.1g
Seatpost, cut: 167.1g.

[patliean1]

Peter has not yet given me the green light to post the actual full PDF report. Hence why I included just screenshots from that document in the video along with my Word notes. He also had no input on what I chose to share.

Nothing nefarious. I have not gotten the impression I was being asked to cherry pick only the "good" aspects of the report. I did spend a fair bit of time combing through the report, but really the only way to resolve this is by making the report public. Especially since the VRT will be discussed on Nero Show next week.

The main takeaway is the VRT design is aerodynamically sound versus a couple of other popular frames, as mentioned above. And I don't think making purchasing decisions based on a couple of watt difference is a smart idea. I still struggle personally to setup my VRT fit-wise which is far more important than any aerodynamic claims.