Chinertown
Chinese Carbon Road Bikes => Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components => Topic started by: Pistonbroke on September 17, 2025, 02:07:59 AM
-
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 ;)
-
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).
-
The Gran Turismo barely got released, earlier in the summer the moulds weren't even available in all sizes.
No harm in daydreaming:-)
-
Just take a look at the latest Mondince aero frame.
Light and aero cues..
-
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
-
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.
-
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?)
-
Evolve Cima, Cannondale Supersix looking frame
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Curious to know if this project is still alive.
I was thinking about this other day, trying to figure out how to design a bayonet fork arrangement that was less proprietary, and honestly, I failed. That doesnt mean it cant be done, I just think the economics and need to reuse fork molds would make it tough to do. On the other end of the spectrum, I think it would be really hard to beat a bike that looks like the XMCS GT, but has the geometry of the Noah Fast 3.0, but with an 80mm BB and a 72.5 HTA (or 73 if you feel bold!) angle across the range. I think you could even reuse the single, existing fork from the GT and manage to get 35mm of clearance in the rear with a sub 410mm chain stay (like the LTK266DSL does).
If you wanted to go all out, a minimal A-C fork, D-shaped steerer, and headset arrangement like the 3T Strada Integrale (whatever the current version is called) would be pretty sweet. Though it would allow you to drop the BB and have more tire clearance without too short of a head tube, I am not sure it would be worth a new fork mold.
-
We would get our US trademark approved soon, hopefully mid-Oct. Then we would arrange UCI approved stuff on our wheels and frameset.
Peter! If you need USA warehousing and order fulfillment message me! I manage a warehouse in East Tennessee and would love to be apart of your US growth!
-
Curious to know if this project is still alive.
I was thinking about this other day, trying to figure out how to design a bayonet fork arrangement that was less proprietary, and honestly, I failed. That doesnt mean it cant be done, I just think the economics and need to reuse fork molds would make it tough to do. On the other end of the spectrum, I think it would be really hard to beat a bike that looks like the XMCS GT, but has the geometry of the Noah Fast 3.0, but with an 80mm BB and a 72.5 HTA (or 73 if you feel bold!) angle across the range. I think you could even reuse the single, existing fork from the GT and manage to get 35mm of clearance in the rear with a sub 410mm chain stay (like the LTK266DSL does).
If you wanted to go all out, a minimal A-C fork, D-shaped steerer, and headset arrangement like the 3T Strada Integrale (whatever the current version is called) would be pretty sweet. Though it would allow you to drop the BB and have more tire clearance without too short of a head tube, I am not sure it would be worth a new fork mold.
Was it ever actually confirmed to not just be wishful thinking from the OP?
Well what's your threshold for proprietary? Stromm have a "steerer" molded on top of the bayonet to be compatible with normal stems. But like a regular steerer, you can't add back stack, like you can with S5 and Y1RS, once it's cut.
-
I’ve spoken to Peter and they are at the drawing boards regarding the frame. They were/are influenved by superX lab71
-
Was it ever actually confirmed to not just be wishful thinking from the OP?
Well what's your threshold for proprietary? Stromm have a "steerer" molded on top of the bayonet to be compatible with normal stems. But like a regular steerer, you can't add back stack, like you can with S5 and Y1RS, once it's cut.
IDK, its just something I was thinking about and felt like bumping the topic to retract my wish for bayonet fork on the basis of cost and complexity. While I still love the idea of separating fork preload from the attachment of the stem and allowing for the use of many different stem/ bar systems, doing so introduces proprietary spacers, as you mention a proprietary top plate. Likely a proprietary axle/ bolt or cap(s) and expander for the steerer.
It's just a lot. You can get most of the aero using a traditional setup, trying to hide your cross-sectional area within the rider's body, and working with a more aero riding position. Sure, you give up the people who can't ride in that position, but you have the GT for them anyway. Obviously, it's not exclusive like that, but taking a risk and producing a $2400 frameset that's novel vs. a $1200 frameset that is still novel seems unnecessary for a couple of watts saved in a wind tunnel test.
-
Yeah, that's most of the thinking behind my wish for no bayonet earlier in the thread. I just don't see a feasible way to make a proper bayonet design while keeping costs and complexity acceptable for the target market.
I’ve spoken to Peter and they are at the drawing boards regarding the frame. They were/are influenved by superX lab71
You sure it wasn't systemsix or supersix?
-
Being one of the mechanics for a bunch of youth racers: I am so incredibly happy nobody has a bike with a bayonette style fork... I'd really wish that EVERY bike (and this race bike as well) will have a ton of versatility, so you can choose in which way you gonna build it... for many of our kids internal routing through the headset would double or triple the time in the workshop... being able to get the cables out of the down tube helps a ton (and watt losses dont matter as much in the kids races)...
being able to have a huge box of stems etc without having to care for any proprietary spacers, forks etc makes the sport easier and cheaper for all of us...
and so on...
-
Yeah, that's most of the thinking behind my wish for no bayonet earlier in the thread. I just don't see a feasible way to make a proper bayonet design while keeping costs and complexity acceptable for the target market.
You sure it wasn't systemsix or supersix?
They wrote superx lab71 to me. Could be a typo from their side
-
I join those who are asking for more aerodynamics.
I want maximum aero + 38c ground clearance + maximum frame rigidity + wide aero fork. Let it be heavy if necessary.
-
I just want it to come in a adult size..
-
Alright, well since this thread is active again and it's confirmed that there's at least something going on, I'll make a second round of suggestions focused on design features, with some examples.
We've already established the headtube and fork is where most of the effort should probably be spent. The most critical is reduction of frontal area, so a heavily waisted headtube would be the best in that regard. This probably means a few extra layers of M-series fibers in the headtube to shore up torsional stiffness, which I think it's an acceptable tradeoff. Examples in first picture: Stromm track bike, Cube Litening Aero, Factor Ostro V2, Dare VA-Afo.
This one can be skipped as it's relatively less impactful and invites more proprietary stuff: Finding a solution to route the cables and reduce the size of the upper headset bearing will allow for a narrower headtube. Usually this is done with non-standard steerers that allow for extra room for the cables. Scott Foil does is with a smaller, 1" diametre, eccentric steerer tube, Incolor SS with a kinked eccentric steerer and most other times it's a D-Shaped steerer. Now the Foil solution is the most elegant, but requires the use of their proprietary stems or a shim. D-shaped steerers are a potential safety risk, especially if they're used with spacers. I think they can still be okay if executed in a similar way as the EXS forks (picture 2).
Make the actual cross section of the upper part of the fork where the blades transition into the crown actually horizontal, so they're not presenting to the wind like they're trying to achieve lift. Examples from Wilier Filante ID2, Stromm Track Bike, Lapierre Xelius 25 in picture 3. Picture 4 is how Factor did this very wrong on the Hanzo TT and fixed it on the Hanzo Track.
Want to reiterate again that there really isn't much to be gained in the rear triangle. Make it as light as can be while stiff enough and make the seatstays slightly aero profiled but thin. Tarmac SL8, Supersix gen 4 and especially Stromm Raktt (picture 5) come to mind.
Don't make the downtube hug the front wheel. This is a very delicate feature that works in a wind tunnel and during steady riding in low wind conditions, but can be very inconsistent in turbulent and high yaw wind conditions. Cervelo S5 performs poorly at high yaw and I think this might be one of the reasons why.
-
So this talk about ideal bikes got me wanting to draw up a sketch of my own, for fun and on the off chance it steers XMCS in my desired direction. As with all "fun little side projects" it spiraled out of control immediately and I spent an absolutely unreasonable amount of time and effort on something I'm not getting paid for and I can absolutely see how good bikes take a lot of time and money to develop.
It's still pretty rough, the fork crown is fucked up, the fork would barely be able to turn before hitting the frame, the chainstays and downtube probably don't need to be so chunky, the seatstays are likely a cracking risk and definitely a heel interference risk, the seattube is probably a bit too thin, I'm not sure the bottom of the head tube is wide enough to safely accomodate a standard bearing and just about every tube cross section is eyeball aero. Still, I'm posting it just cause I wanna show it off.
Front end geometry is roughly in line with Dare VA-AFO, 76° seat angle (probably excessive if there's no significant setback or sliding post), 80 mm BB drop, and minimum 6mm of clearance with 40 mm tyres front and back.
-
Name of the frame should be a homage to Chinertown since the design ideas literally came from the members.
-
That’s a brilliant effort.
Looks like a mix of all the cool design stuff around now. Maybe seat stays a bit too low aesthetically. Feels a bit too close to a TT bike.
-
So this talk about ideal bikes got me wanting to draw up a sketch of my own, for fun and on the off chance it steers XMCS in my desired direction. As with all "fun little side projects" it spiraled out of control immediately and I spent an absolutely unreasonable amount of time on effort on something I'm not getting paid for and I can abosolutely see how good bikes take a lot of time and money to develop.
This is a fantastic effort. One of the challenges of this bike geo is that fitting a 40mm WAM tire AND having 80mm BB drop is going to be hard in the small sizes due to really short HT lengths. If you went back down to a 35mm tire size with 6mm of clearance, you could make a low crown fork like 3T does and make it all work.
For my contribution, I tried to create a fictional geo chart for this bike that could roughly go with Toxin's design.
- I based it more on the Noah Fast 3.0 than the Dare, because there are enough video of pro riders on the Noah Fast 3.0 to see how their bikes are set up and ridden which allowed me to tweak that geometry a bit to balance the bike a bit better under the massive assumption that the pro riders from UNO X are the target market for a frame like this.
- This assumption that Peter's dream is to get a bike in World Tour level races is foundational to this geometry chart. Problems with the UCI rules on the horizontal front-center distance (ARTICLE 1.3.016) were a key challenge when working on the geometry
- In an effort to keep costs under control, I worked to find a single fork rake and HTA that worked for the range. The bike would be one-piece molded, so I felt free to adjust the rear triangle as needed.
The attached image shows what a geo chart could look like if you wanted to design a breakaway, specialist aero bike, learning from the Noah Fast 3.0 pro fits and still be UCI-compliant. This is not just a copy of an existing geo, nor is it an attempt to linearly scale a bike from a winning formula (e.g., the VB 368 scaling its entire range from the Size 52 SL8). It's definitely rough, but hopefully fun for discussion.
PS. I didn't check the ST C-C as it doesn't drive anything in the spreadsheet so its the same as it would have been for the Noah Fast 3.0
-
431 / 544 in 56… that will make it a bike rideable for a very limited audience.
-
Tricky isn't it.
Probably the path to commercial success is to make what is effectively an SL8 sworks clone with a few bells and whistles. It's going to be light, strong and relatively fast. Light weight sells as we know, and there's quite a few of us over here from Weightweenies so we understand that siren call.
Then there's the cutting edge of things like the Ridley/Dare(Simplon maybe) that will probably be faster if it works for you, but won't appeal to so many people... Although I suspect lots of riders could adapt and feel comfortable with this type of frame and it's only fear of the unknown (and £££) that's stopping them trying.
It really wouldn't surprise me if the SL9 ( Venge Evolution, whatever) runs along these lines.
-
431 / 544 in 56… that will make it a bike rideable for a very limited audience.
Is the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 also considered a bike only rideable for a limited audience? That design could have been a little longer, given the number of pro riders on 140mm, 150mm, and 160mm stems. This is about 1cm longer in the 56 than that bike.
IMO, riders who want this kind of bike need to get used to a different riding position with a sub-30-degree back angle and open hips. From experience, this kind of geo should be rideable by folks who are decently fit in the 3 w/kg range and are relatively flexible. Even if the market is limited, this is supposed to be a breakaway-style road race bike, so the number of people actually riding it in a way that aligns with this design goal would be low. I don't plan to own the business case for this kind of bike design, so that's someone else's problem ;D
Like the Noah Fast 3.0, my geo ran into trouble with the larger sizes. I wanted to make a 61 for the size chart, but it was impossible to pursue the design theory without running afoul of UCI rules or compressing the front end with a very steep HTA and compromising the handling. So like the Noah, my geo tops out at a 58.
-
Why the recessed head tube similar to a TT bike?
Not that I'm for or against it. Especially if the frame stack isn't crazy low, or if the frame included a positive rising handlebar like on the Cervelo S5.
-
Is the Ridley Noah Fast 3.0 also considered a bike only rideable for a limited audience? That design could have been a little longer, given the number of pro riders on 140mm, 150mm, and 160mm stems. This is about 1cm longer in the 56 than that bike.
IMO, riders who want this kind of bike need to get used to a different riding position with a sub-30-degree back angle and open hips. From experience, this kind of geo should be rideable by folks who are decently fit in the 3 w/kg range and are relatively flexible. Even if the market is limited, this is supposed to be a breakaway-style road race bike, so the number of people actually riding it in a way that aligns with this design goal would be low. I don't plan to own the business case for this kind of bike design, so that's someone else's problem ;D
Like the Noah Fast 3.0, my geo ran into trouble with the larger sizes. I wanted to make a 61 for the size chart, but it was impossible to pursue the design theory without running afoul of UCI rules or compressing the front end with a very steep HTA and compromising the handling. So like the Noah, my geo tops out at a 58.
Noah Fast 3.0 M (56) is 412 reach, 570 stack.
You are proposing 20mm longer, 24mm lower. In geo world that’s huge. If you want a bike suitable for commercialization ánd the more serious amateurs copying the Noah is much more sensible.
Your suggested geo is wild. Nice for a personal project tho.
-
Why the recessed head tube similar to a TT bike?
Not that I'm for or against it. Especially if the frame stack isn't crazy low, or if the frame included a positive rising handlebar like on the Cervelo S5.
In essence it simply makes the top tube a continuation of the head tube because I don't like the aesthetics of of a concave transition from the head tube to top tube. The idea is that the negative space would be filled by a custom headset cover, similar to the VB-368. It and the Van Rysel RCR-F were the main inspirations behind this section of design. It's not deep enough to fit a non-custom stem in there regardless.
This happened mostly because I wanted a curved top tube. With a straight top tube, at maybe even higher slope angle, this effect could be reduced or even entirely eliminated. I also think that this makes a tall spacer stack less disruptive to the aesthetics of a bike. Look at some pics of the Noah Fast 3.0 with spacers for examples, although that one suffers a bit cause of the stem design.
-
Noah Fast 3.0 M (56) is 412 reach, 570 stack.
You are proposing 20mm longer, 24mm lower. In geo world that’s huge. If you want a bike suitable for commercialization ánd the more serious amateurs copying the Noah is much more sensible.
Your suggested geo is wild. Nice for a personal project tho.
You are looking at the Noah 3.0, not the Noah Fast 3.0.
The Noah Fast 3.0 M is 420mm Reach, 541mm Stack.
I am proposing 431mm reach and 544mm stack. My target at the M size was the removal of a 5mm spacer and running a one size shorter stem; I didn't quite get there, given the desire to keep numbers round elsewhere, but it's close enough for a rough draft.
-
Here's the geometry I based this on. Note that this fork crown design requires a significantly longer than normal effective fork length to get any tyre clearance.
-
In essence it simply makes the top tube a continuation of the head tube because I don't like the aesthetics of of a concave transition from the head tube to top tube. The idea is that the negative space would be filled by a custom headset cover, similar to the VB-368. It and the Van Rysel RCR-F were the main inspirations behind this section of design. It's not deep enough to fit a non-custom stem in there regardless.
I really like this design because it can allow you to achieve the slammed look while hiding a 5mm spacer. Attached is a photo of a prototype headset cover for the Haro Rivette that does just that, its hiding a 5mm ACR spacer which I think is the same as the XMCS "Revenger" bar. That design might need some tweaks to fit an aero bike like this one, but it would mean that you could easily get to 25mm of spacers + the 5mm headset cover and still have the look be very normal.
Here's the geometry I based this on. Note that this fork crown design requires a significantly longer than normal effective fork length to get any tyre clearance.
Yeah, this geo (and the Dare VA) is more likely to align with the next-gen aero bike frames from the big brands, based on what I have seen. Where it gets weird is that the UnoX Ridleys from 2025 were set up extremely long, and many had 5-15mm spacers. So the question for the commercialization of a race bike is: do you swing for the fences based on what you see the pros and high-level racers are doing? Or do you go to where you think the other brands are going, knowing full well they are crawling, not walking, towards these more aero fits?
Luckily, I don't have to make that call. Just doing it for a handlebar was stressful enough.
-
Yeah, with my design you could get away with a good 20mm of spacers without significantly compromising the silhuette of a bike. I guess another avenue where this could take you is multiple headset covers of varying height. You can have a standard low stack cover for those who can handle those positions and a second high stack cover for the more common rider that still makes it look like a normal bike, without the stigma of spacers. On my design that would net you a 24 mm stack increase and 7.5 mm reach decrease.
-
You are looking at the Noah 3.0, not the Noah Fast 3.0.
The Noah Fast 3.0 M is 420mm Reach, 541mm Stack.
I am proposing 431mm reach and 544mm stack. My target at the M size was the removal of a 5mm spacer and running a one size shorter stem; I didn't quite get there, given the desire to keep numbers round elsewhere, but it's close enough for a rough draft.
Oh boy did I get that wrong - thanks for setting me straight.
But still; it’s a very very aggressive / on the edge geo and you are going a step further. Why not keep the reach, or reduce a bit, and increase the stack?
-
IMO make the tubes that hit the wind (headtube, upper downtube, seatube, fork blades etc) very thin and pretty deep (50mm+) and try to get frameweight around 850g in a 54. It would be nice to have the frame optimized around the trek style aero bottle/cage system but its not a necessity. The bayonet fork, wide fork blades, 32mm+ tire clearance, and unorthodox geometry should be ignored imo, its a race bike.
-
Oh boy did I get that wrong - thanks for setting me straight.
But still; it’s a very very aggressive / on the edge geo and you are going a step further. Why not keep the reach, or reduce a bit, and increase the stack?
Ultimately, it's a product strategy question for a company trying to break into competitive racing bikes. While some big factories can fast-follow and copy anything, I am not sure XMCS does. A small company with big ambitions needs to decide whether to play it safe, follow the market leaders (e.g., something more like the Dare or New Factor), or push the envelope with something like this, essentially trying to release a next-gen Noah Fast 3.0. Glad I don't need to make this call, but I think of the design I proposed as the third track.
The rationale for this design is simple. A design like the one I shared allows for two things. First, it seeks to balance the handling with longer and forward fit by moving the front wheel forward and the BB down and back. This should help keep the handling more neutral when descending for riders currently using a fit like this. Second, if this really is a bike for pros; based on what we saw from UnoX this is probably needed for the long and longer classics race fits we saw in 2025. You can see in some of their videos that, even with 160mm stems, some of their riders struggled because the bikes weren't quite long enough for the breakaway position. We did not see any really short stems, so there is no indication that this design needs less reach, and quite a bit suggests more is needed. The stack is also adjusted based on the spacers seen on those riders' stacks and how we see the Ridley being built up in the real world.
Obviously, this use case is a niche market and isn't for the average amateur or fondo racer. It's not optimized for grand tour-style riders either, but instead literally is trying to reflect UnoX's setups. It's likely also very relevant to the niche market that does crit/kermesse and one-day road races. That doesn't mean it couldn't work for grand-tour all-rounders.
For example:
- Pogacar's Y1RS is a medium (sized up from his previous bikes) had a 145mm stem on it at the Tour and WCs this year. On the geo I put together, a rider looking to replicate that position would be on a 100mm stem or a 110mm stem on a size M.
- Remco is on a 115mm custom Roval Bar stem (for stem angle) on his Tarmac SL8. A rider replicating that position should be able to do it on the proposed Size XS with a 100mm stem and like 10mm-15mm of spacers
Those two top world tour pros already have solutions that are heavily optimized for them. I don't think a bike like this would offer them a significant advantage over their current setups, so they probably wouldn't take full advantage of what a frame like this could offer. However, they would still fit well on this kind of geometry with some added flexibility to go longer in Pogacar's case or lower in Remco's case.
This is all theoretical, so why not dream big?
Edit: I should also add that the geo chart I made accounted for trying to keep costs down with one fork mold AND reusing the "Revenger" bar stem, as I think that bar stem was also built around a 72.5deg HTA (though I am not sure).
-
IMO make the tubes that hit the wind (headtube, upper downtube, seatube, fork blades etc) very thin and pretty deep (50mm+) and try to get frameweight around 850g in a 54.
That's not really realistic. You can go sorta deep in the front and really shallow in the back to min/max weight and aero. In the same vein, thinner tube profiles need more material to maintain stiffness. My goal was to make something that could be made under 1000g in medium sizes. I don't really think I succeeded on that front. I'm guessing my design would need more than that. There's also the problem of choosing which yaw angles you want to design for. Tube profiles with a sharper taper and narrower trailing edges will perform better at low yaw, while blunter tapers with wider trailing edges will be better at high yaw. It's all a game of trade-offs.
It would be nice to have the frame optimized around the trek style aero bottle/cage system but its not a necessity.
I had round bottles in mind, but looking at the specs for Trek's bottles, I was pretty surprised that their listed dimensions don't really put them any narrower than standard round bottles, In which case there's not really much sense designing especially around them, unless you made your own or targeted a narrower system (I think Incolor's bottles are a bit narrower). In the end, as long as you have a wide enough down-tube, it would mostly come down to positioning the mounting bolts to place the bottles closely together.
The bayonet fork, wide fork blades, 32mm+ tire clearance, and unorthodox geometry should be ignored imo, its a race bike.
Bayonet fork just wouldn't be commercially viable, yes. Tyre clearance was overdone on the face of it, yes, but the actual gain of big clearance at the front is less interaction between the fork and wheels. At the rear, having a shallower seat tube will help with reducing in-plane stiffness and improving comfort. That's where the wide clearance originally came from, but because of the extremely steep seat angle, I didn't really end up where I originally intended. Reducing clearance would definitely help with chain stay design, which would help drop some weight. In a final version, I would increase "clearance" on the seat tube and reduce it on the chain stays. Absolutely don't agree with you on geometry. The whole point of a proper race bike is that it shouldn't have conventional geometry. IMO most "race" bikes these days aren't fit for purpose in that aspect.
-
Hand drawn rendition of some changes I'd make. Mostly focused on dropping weight by giving the rear some Incolor SSR and Scott Foil treatment.
-
Hand drawn rendition of some changes I'd make. Mostly focused on dropping weight by giving the rear some Incolor SSR and Scott Foil treatment.
This looks amazing 🤩
-
Hand drawn rendition of some changes I'd make. Mostly focused on dropping weight by giving the rear some Incolor SSR and Scott Foil treatment.
This is nice, dont like the transition from headtube to top tube, I think the slow taper looks really ugly and dated.
-
You mean the transition from the back of the head tube into the top tube? I don't necessarily disagree, I used to really hate it too, but I've come around to being in favour of it as a pragmatic choice.
It's better structurally, but more importantly, I think it helps with aero because that part still sees a decent bit of clean air. I think the best way to design a fast head tube is to make it taper relatively sharply, which will improve low yaw performance. Then you use some of that 8 cm alloted for the top tube to effectively deepend the head tube, increasing the side profile of the bike and (hopefully) the area that contibutes to sailing effect, to improve high yaw performance.
The worry I have for this combination of features is stability in crosswinds. The sharp taper should contribute to earlier separation of flow and worse aerodynamic stability. However, as your ground speed increases, flow attachment improves and the apparent yaw angles you experience lower. So as you go faster the bike becomes more stable and starts performing better aerodynamically.
-
You mean the transition from the back of the head tube into the top tube? I don't necessarily disagree, I used to really hate it too, but I've come around to being in favour of it as a pragmatic choice.
It's better structurally, but more importantly, I think it helps with aero because that part still sees a decent bit of clean air. I think the best way to design a fast head tube is to make it taper relatively sharply, which will improve low yaw performance. Then you use some of that 8 cm alloted for the top tube to effectively deepend the head tube, increasing the side profile of the bike and (hopefully) the area that contibutes to sailing effect, to improve high yaw performance.
The worry I have for this combination of features is stability in crosswinds. The sharp taper should contribute to earlier separation of flow and worse aerodynamic stability. However, as your ground speed increases, flow attachment improves and the apparent yaw angles you experience lower. So as you go faster the bike becomes more stable and starts performing better aerodynamically.
I don't fully understand why you think a sharp taper is faster? This does not make sense or align with the data unless I am confused about what you mean by that, which is most likely the case. Most of the shapes used for an HT would be truncated aerofoils where you can control the whole profile, so really different from wheels, where, at the rear, you need your design to account for the tires as the leading and trailing edges of the bike.
Regardless, I still like the sketch and agree with the principle of focusing on the fork crown, head tube and the fork blades. The fork blades are likely deeper than they need to be for this kind of design, but its hard because this isn't just a yaw problem, its an angle of attack problem. I think you get a lot less for the depth on the road than you would on a velodrome or even most TT courses, as you need to account for more variance on that AA vs. just the yaw (because you turn the wheels more).
-
Okay "taper" wasn't the technically correct term to use, I just prefer to keep it to more broadly understandable language on public forums. What I mean is that for a profile with the same leading section, a truncated airfoil that terminates in a narrower trailing edge is faster at low yaw, so effectively a lower aspect ratio airfoil.
The problem with desiging a head tube is that you have to fit things inside, so you don't have too much freedom in designing the leading section. Ideally, you'd probably place the steerer closer to the middle of the head tube (Pinarello Bolide F TT), to give you more freedom in design. I placed the steering axis 45 mm behind the front edge of the head tube. I can't say with any true certainty, but I think that's on the far side of the spectrum compared to most of what's on the market.
Yesterday I took the widest leading section of my HT design (a 45 and 26 mm radius half ellipse), and ran cfd tests with trailing edges of the same lengths and different width trailing edges. I tested the 38mm I originally used, 28, 20, 15 and 10mm (and a 2 mm radius fillet on all of them) at 40 and 50 kmh from 0 to 12°. As the trailing edge narrowed, the result was consistent improvement at low yaw and, conversely, deterioration at rising yaw.
-
Ah, I get it now. The narrower "taper" rule is highly dependent on the constraints you are dealing with here and would hold if you dramatically changed the depth of the HT. Since the optimization should follow a curve, you could also move to a narrower nose radius without the correct depth, and the shape would get slower. You can see this in some of Hunt's wheel white papers; though those also need to be taken in the context of the tire needing to be roughly round in shape and located where it is.
It's too bad that the speed sniffer making sense doesn't make it any less ugly...
-
I made a second iteration. This one actually had some planning behind it so it turned out much better than last time when I was making it up as I went. There are still some errors (I wish I remembered what I was doing when I sketched out the fork crown 2 mm further forward than the head tube) and some things I didn't have the foresight to plan around, but for the most part it's alright enough that I can put it through some cfd. The fork even turns a full 360° without contacting the frame. Should still clear 40mm tyres and geometry is a touch more aggressive
When I posted the first design, a user messaged me that they saw some prototypes from XMCS, so they are probably far along enough in production that if there are any similarities, they probably arrived there separately.
I won't clog this thread further so it'll probably just be a private passion project from now on.
-
I made a second iteration. This one actually had some planning behind it so it turned out much better than last time when I was making it up as I went. There are still some errors (I wish I remembered what I was doing when I sketched out the fork crown 2 mm further forward than the head tube) and some things I didn't have the foresight to plan around, but for the most part it's alright enough that I can put it through some cfd. The fork even turns a full 360° without contacting the frame. Should still clear 40mm tyres and geometry is a touch more aggressive
When I posted the first design, a user messaged me that they saw some prototypes from XMCS, so they are probably far along enough in production that if there are any similarities, they probably arrived there separately.
I won't clog this thread further so it'll probably just be a private passion project from now on.
I really like this design and the intended geometry. Please keep sharing it perhaps in a separate thread?
I belive it can inspire both users and manufacturers in the forum(s).
-
I made a second iteration. This one actually had some planning behind it so it turned out much better than last time when I was making it up as I went. There are still some errors (I wish I remembered what I was doing when I sketched out the fork crown 2 mm further forward than the head tube) and some things I didn't have the foresight to plan around, but for the most part it's alright enough that I can put it through some cfd. The fork even turns a full 360° without contacting the frame. Should still clear 40mm tyres and geometry is a touch more aggressive
When I posted the first design, a user messaged me that they saw some prototypes from XMCS, so they are probably far along enough in production that if there are any similarities, they probably arrived there separately.
I won't clog this thread further so it'll probably just be a private passion project from now on.
This is so cool. I want to ride that.
-
Man I was considering trying my hand at frame design in Fusion. You beat me to the punch with basically exactly what I want in a frame. Aero in the front, climber in the back, ~35mm tire/38mm wheel clearance. I think I would prefer a conventional headset situation but other than that it's basically perfect. Looking forward to see what XMCS comes up with.
-
So, we are making two new framesets for 2026, haven't named them yet.
-
Looking Good - any indication, when these will be available to Order?
-
PeterXu: Looks pretty good, even in my XXL size geometry looks spot on. Only thing if I may to say my wish, take a look at offering seatpost with forward facing offset maybe 5-10mm.
I love it on my Aeroad to have seat further forward and in my size I would have to have seattube angle 75-76° that offset seatpost is pretty good solution.
-
So, we are making two new framesets for 2026, haven't named them yet.
The second on with deep head tube and S5 esque seat tube is looking noice!!
Need a medium though
-
I am super excited for that S5/Foil aero frameset. And the geometry for a size large is spot on! Would be interesting to test this against the Scott Foil and QuickPro ER:One if I get my hands on one.
-Frame
-Handlebars
-Wheels
-Carbon crankset
-Carbon chainring
All that's remaining for Peter to design is a carbon saddle and bottle cages 🤣
-
Looks really interesting! Frame design and geometry ticks most of the boxes I find. Gotta be n+1 again for sure lol.
-
That’s some great news from Peter! Besides the fact that the aero bike looks really cool, I’m especially pleased with the geometry. That’s an area where many Chinese vendors tend to drop the ball — often making the stack too low and the reach too long for the intended size, or compromising by squeezing two sizes into one (e.g. L and XL).
If this frame also targets high specs for stiffness and weight, similar to the Gran Turismo frame — using higher-grade materials and more refined manufacturing techniques — I think it will be a real hot seller.
-
I just want it to come in a adult size..
It's happening. It's really happening! 8)
-
Any info regarding the tire clearance?
-
Any info regarding the tire clearance?
Both frames take 35c tyres
-
Really like the S5/Foil aero frameset. Any indication on weight? Is sub 950gr for size 54 realistic Peter?
-
That’s some great news from Peter! Besides the fact that the aero bike looks really cool, I’m especially pleased with the geometry. That’s an area where many Chinese vendors tend to drop the ball — often making the stack too low and the reach too long for the intended size, or compromising by squeezing two sizes into one (e.g. L and XL).
If this frame also targets high specs for stiffness and weight, similar to the Gran Turismo frame — using higher-grade materials and more refined manufacturing techniques — I think it will be a real hot seller.
I find the geometry problem to be the opposite- I am running a 130mm stem and can never find a frame with more TT than stack. I dont see the point of making these endurance bikes. A 1:1 TT:stack ratio is probably the best compromise.
I have been mulling my next build...... the 2nd frame w/some 34-35mm WAM wheels and 32c tires sounds lovely
-
The "Foil" looks nice, but come on, steepen those STAs! Similar stack/reach numbers for the "SL8", but easier to achieve the "meme fit" on that one with steeper STA.
Looks like they just copied the geometry from the "inspiration" for those two frames. A bit disappointing I must admit.
-
Would like to see steeper sta too :-)
Think PeakTorque said same on Instagram
More reach while I'm wishing too please
Any indication of price yet Peter?
-
The "Foil" looks nice, but come on, steepen those STAs! Similar stack/reach numbers for the "SL8", but easier to achieve the "meme fit" on that one with steeper STA.
Looks like they just copied the geometry from the "inspiration" for those two frames. A bit disappointing I must admit.
I think the STA is measurred at the Stack height and therefore you should have steeper STA the higher you sit
-
I think the STA is measurred at the Stack height and therefore you should have steeper STA the higher you sit
I see what you mean. The axis of the seatpost is eccentric to the BB. I guess this also goes for the original Foil as well as for the S5. Makes it hard to determine whether it will enable positioning the seat as far forward as I would like ... since, as you pointed out, raising the seat effectively steepens the STA.
-
Meh, looking at the STA, angle of the actual post and its design, doesn't look like it'll be that much steeper in reality. Just disappointingly standard geometry overall.
-
Meh, looking at the STA, angle of the actual post and its design, doesn't look like it'll be that much steeper in reality. Just disappointingly standard geometry overall.
Right, I wish we have more progressive design but for XMCS it's a safe bet they get their underground market share. Most people who are less aware of the intricacies of the frame geometry would be scared anyways, heck most fitters can't fit people on the bikes that barely changed in the last 30 years, imagine giving them something completely different.
-
I think Peter will be offering both a 0 and 8mm offset seatpost. Problem solved.
Currently a 73.3° seat angle with a 0 offset seatpost puts my saddle rails two-thirds of the way back. All things like effective top tube length, stack, reach etc being equal. A 74° only works for me with an 8mm offset. But as I learned I'm probably the far minority.
-
Right, I wish we have more progressive design but for XMCS it's a safe bet they get their underground market share. Most people who are less aware of the intricacies of the frame geometry would be scared anyways, heck most fitters can't fit people on the bikes that barely changed in the last 30 years, imagine giving them something completely different.
Couldn't agree more. There is what I wish for, and there is the reality that Peter needs to make money and not take risks beyond what he considers reasonable for his business. I understand why these are the geometries, and while I find it disappointing to see another "me too" bike, it's a very rational choice and almost certainly a better business decision in the near term.
I think Peter will be offering both a 0 and 8mm offset seatpost. Problem solved.
Currently a 73.3° seat angle with a 0 offset seatpost puts my saddle rails two-thirds of the way back. All things like effective top tube length, stack, reach etc being equal. A 74° only works for me with an 8mm offset. But as I learned I'm probably the far minority.
8mm forward offset? It doesn't solve the problem at all, even if that's the case. Yes, it will fit better for people who want to sit further forward, but the handling will be poor because the weight will be too far forward relative to the front wheel.
-
8mm backwards lol
-
There is what I wish for, and there is the reality that Peter needs to make money and not take risks beyond what he considers reasonable for his business. I understand why these are the geometries, and while I find it disappointing to see another "me too" bike, it's a very rational choice and almost certainly a better business decision in the near term.
If you look at Velobuild for example, I think their bold moves are paying off.
Their quality and reputation isn't great, but they're selling plenty of AeroGravs and AeroTraces.
Progressive geometries might still be niche right now, but if Specialized is playing the geometry card with the Venge release next summer, then every west and east brand are going to follow.
-
If you look at Velobuild for example, I think their bold moves are paying off.
Their quality and reputation isn't great, but they're selling plenty of AeroGravs and AeroTraces.
Progressive geometries might still be niche right now, but if Specialized is playing the geometry card with the Venge release next summer, then every west and east brand are going to follow.
Yup.
The reason I bought the Aerotrace was to try geometry that isn't really available elsewhere, and do you know what, it's really really nice to ride.
-
We are seeing in real time two modest companies with what I assume very tight engineering, production, and marketing budgets take two completely different approaches to designing a new frame. VeloBuild and XMCS. I'm happy to see there's a place for both to exists successfully. Two completely different demographics.
I imagine having a limited marketing budget means online forums and influencers do most of the heavy lifting to spread awareness. This can be very dangerous if your product is crap. And if you're trying to gain market share to customers/athletes who still hold the traditional values of western brands then going conservative with a "me too" bike is probably the best course for a smaller business.
Peter will have a booth at Sea Otter for 2026. Even with a registered U.S. trademark now it's gonna be an uphill battle. That trade show is pretty much the final boss of who's who in brand recognition and snobbery. Not to mention the various teams and privateers who show up to race the weekend. It appears that Peter is focusing on promoting his actual brand. Rather than his OEM capabilities. Every move needs to be very calculated I reckon.
-
I like the two models, nice start of a range.
But like others said, to identify XMCS as its own unique proposition, it would help to create a more adventurous design. Even if it doesn’t sell great, it will help in brand positioning.
-
If you're trying to grow a brand quickly and break out, this is honestly far too generic. If it were still the early 2020s, it might work, but now I predict these are gonna be written off as just another of dozens of chinese frames. I don't really like the new Incolor SSR, but it's going to do wonders for getting the brand name out into the world. Relying on influencers to praise your manufacturing quality isn't gonna do the trick these days. You need something that makes you stand out at a glance.
If you want to grow and slowly establish yourself as a pillar of the industry like Giant did, it might work, but you'd need a whole lot of patience and resources, which I'm not ssure XMCS have the luxury of.
-
I'm thinking about this from an athlete's perspective based on the frequency of inquires I get about specific frames/wheels. Of course I'm just one person and one sample set. And competitive athletes probably make up a very small percentage of actual buyers. So this is probably a moot point.
Winspace, Tavelo, and QuickPro rule my inbox whenever I get asked/approached about alternative "race" frames. Usually these folks have already done their research and are just looking for confirmation. And for wheel inquires it's Elite Wheels, No.6, and XMCS. Not everyone inquiring is a crit bro. But in their minds "good enough for racing" means they won't explode. It's sad how strong the Chinese brand stigma is, but it's slowly changing.
These brands aren't exactly reinventing the wheel (pun intended). Yet, they've built up enough brand cache and awareness that even the average athlete who doesn't spend hours on the internet like myself might be consider buying from. The Tavelo Arow and QuickPro ER:One aren't some radical frame designs. But they do the important things well yet cheaper than their Western brand counterparts. Same with the Winspace T1500 from a few years ago.
So while yes I would appreciate seeing a more progressive approach to frame design, I also know first-hand how finicky athletes can be. At least here in Chicago-land. They mostly just want budget alternative to brands they are already well familiar with.
EDIT: Any thoughts about a name for these frames? In my head I was thinking something like the AERO 1 and GT 1, respectively. This is above my pay grade clearly.
-
If you're trying to grow a brand quickly and break out, this is honestly far too generic. If it were still the early 2020s, it might work, but now I predict these are gonna be written off as just another of dozens of chinese frames. I don't really like the new Incolor SSR, but it's going to do wonders for getting the brand name out into the world. Relying on influencers to praise your manufacturing quality isn't gonna do the trick these days. You need something that makes you stand out at a glance.
If you want to grow and slowly establish yourself as a pillar of the industry like Giant did, it might work, but you'd need a whole lot of patience and resources, which I'm not ssure XMCS have the luxury of.
Your point about differentiation is a good one, and I did post a whole geometry for where I see the fits headed in a few years, with more stack differentiation than you see today with longer fits. Most people react as I saw here, with skepticism and the assumption that it could never work for them. A lot of people who ride my bike are surprised to find how well it does work, as it's closer to an endurance-focused tri bike fit than to a proper UCI TT fit.
I started my learning journey on this type of tri-bike fit geometry in 2022 with both a custom bar and laying out the case to make track-style bars for the road in the HB24. Neither were original ideas, but even after three years have elapsed, I have yet to try to raise the funds to have a frame made for a couple of reasons.
First, because there is still a lot of learning about this concept left to do, and a lot of potential UCI regulations that could reduce your investment to rubble overnight. I look at VB, and I do not see that kind of bike unless you are looking at the larger two sizes. If anything, it's more of a toe dipped into the water to create some differentiation. I DO see it with Ridley, and there is a lot to learn by looking at how people are actually riding the Noah Fast 3.0 in real life, but those bikes are pretty rare outside of situations where you see riders sponsored by Ridley.
But the bigger issue is that even with the Ridley existing, it's still mostly a novel and niche concept. On the average 30-person group ride, 0-1 persons are thinking about this. In my experience, that one person is either a serious crit racer or a high-level triathlete.
XMCS could have been part of creating that conversation, but it would also have been a lot of work and required a significant marketing budget. Probably not the best place to start for a small brand looking to build its rep, but would have been BOLD AF. Unfortunately, bold doesn't = $$$.
-
Your point about differentiation is a good one, and I did post a whole geometry for where I see the fits headed in a few years, with more stack differentiation than you see today with longer fits. Most people react as I saw here, with skepticism and the assumption that it could never work for them. A lot of people who ride my bike are surprised to find how well it does work, as it's closer to an endurance-focused tri bike fit than to a proper UCI TT fit.
I started my learning journey on this type of tri-bike fit geometry in 2022 with both a custom bar and laying out the case to make track-style bars for the road in the HB24. Neither were original ideas, but even after three years have elapsed, I have yet to try to raise the funds to have a frame made for a couple of reasons.
First, because there is still a lot of learning about this concept left to do, and a lot of potential UCI regulations that could reduce your investment to rubble overnight. I look at VB, and I do not see that kind of bike unless you are looking at the larger two sizes. If anything, it's more of a toe dipped into the water to create some differentiation. I DO see it with Ridley, and there is a lot to learn by looking at how people are actually riding the Noah Fast 3.0 in real life, but those bikes are pretty rare outside of situations where you see riders sponsored by Ridley.
But the bigger issue is that even with the Ridley existing, it's still mostly a novel and niche concept. On the average 30-person group ride, 0-1 persons are thinking about this. In my experience, that one person is either a serious crit racer or a high-level triathlete.
XMCS could have been part of creating that conversation, but it would also have been a lot of work and required a significant marketing budget. Probably not the best place to start for a small brand looking to build its rep, but would have been BOLD AF. Unfortunately, bold doesn't = $$$.
Mind sharing the post on geometry. I’ve Got no idea what to search for
-
get that this frame isn’t bringing anything new to the table. Honestly, in the bike space—whether Western or Chinese brands—everything starts to blur together; there’s not much real innovation on either side of the fence. The Y1RS looks radical, but I think that’s more about being different and standing out to drive sales than genuinely pushing the limits.
The market is saturated. Brands are struggling, and everyone is playing it safe. The SL9 trademark has been registered, so it’ll be interesting to see what Specialized brings to the table. They led with the “one bike does it all” concept, which everyone else has followed to some degree, and the new Rovals, in my opinion, were a dead duck.
The bloody UCI is half the problem with its archaic rules, which stifle real innovation.
Either way, I’m still very interested in this bike. The 54 cm has geometry very close to the SL8. I really miss my old Venge and want a full-on aero bike back in the stable.
I was considering the Quick Pro ER One, but the branding is just so sh1t. I love the bike—I just don’t want “Quick Pro” splashed across the downtube. The XMC is a good-looking alternative. I just hope the frame isn’t a total beast; around 900 g for the lightest UD finish would be a good target, but I fear I might be clutching at straws. Regardless, we at least know the quality will be there.
I didn’t even clock the new S5 until a month or so ago, and it’s a great-looking bike—except for those bloody handlebars. The deep head tube looks fantastic, though. So I’m hoping the bar aesthetics work with the XMC. On a lot of bikes with shallower head tubes, the integrated bars look odd and a bit lost.
-
Mind sharing the post on geometry. I’ve Got no idea what to search for
.
-
Your point about differentiation is a good one, and I did post a whole geometry for where I see the fits headed in a few years, with more stack differentiation than you see today with longer fits. Most people react as I saw here, with skepticism and the assumption that it could never work for them. A lot of people who ride my bike are surprised to find how well it does work, as it's closer to an endurance-focused tri bike fit than to a proper UCI TT fit.
I started my learning journey on this type of tri-bike fit geometry in 2022 with both a custom bar and laying out the case to make track-style bars for the road in the HB24. Neither were original ideas, but even after three years have elapsed, I have yet to try to raise the funds to have a frame made for a couple of reasons.
First, because there is still a lot of learning about this concept left to do, and a lot of potential UCI regulations that could reduce your investment to rubble overnight. I look at VB, and I do not see that kind of bike unless you are looking at the larger two sizes. If anything, it's more of a toe dipped into the water to create some differentiation. I DO see it with Ridley, and there is a lot to learn by looking at how people are actually riding the Noah Fast 3.0 in real life, but those bikes are pretty rare outside of situations where you see riders sponsored by Ridley.
But the bigger issue is that even with the Ridley existing, it's still mostly a novel and niche concept. On the average 30-person group ride, 0-1 persons are thinking about this. In my experience, that one person is either a serious crit racer or a high-level triathlete.
XMCS could have been part of creating that conversation, but it would also have been a lot of work and required a significant marketing budget. Probably not the best place to start for a small brand looking to build its rep, but would have been BOLD AF. Unfortunately, bold doesn't = $$$.
Is there any similarity in the tri-bike adjacent geometry to this concept from around 1991?
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1293665-road-test-bike-review-1991-clark-kent-ax-1-alexi-grewal.html (https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1293665-road-test-bike-review-1991-clark-kent-ax-1-alexi-grewal.html)
-
I wasn't even talking just about geometry, that's just my biggest personal pain point. From a commercial POV, these designs are just not something that's going to set you apart aesthetically in 2025(6), they look like "just another bike" to me.
Winspace was pretty much a pioneer, even if they were just selling rebranded open mould frames. They were the first brand out of china that came out with a decent marketing push and more affordable prices (compared to mainstream) at a decent quality level. Tavelo came a bit later, but there was still enough room in the space and, crucially they had Joe and Panda Podium behind them and they were sponsoring a lot of local riders with bikes. Quick Pro came relatively late and the AR:One was a bit of a standout by weight, but they were pushed hard by Joe and again, were on Panda Podium from the start and are a name sponsor for a pro team (I've heard they will be sponsoring Euskaltel next year, but that's rumour). Are XMCS ready to to go to such lengths? There are also other emerging Chinese brands that have already shown standout prototypes. The space is getting really saturated with competition now. I wouldn't count on the methods that worked for Winspace to work now, unless they get REALLY aggressive with pricing.
So to catch up from scratch you either need a huge marketing push or something that sets you apart. We'll have to wait for the pricing, because if there will be a marketing push, the money for that has to come from somewhere.
-
Mind sharing the post on geometry. I’ve Got no idea what to search for
he means this https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,6481.msg96572.html#msg96572
also invaluable threads on the topic
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=178580
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=177105
-
Peter, I'm hoping you find all this constructive in some crazy way :o :P :)
-
This should be final version and we do steepen the STA.
-
This should be final version and we do steepen the STA.
Yep looks great peter!
Quick get it into production ASAP 54cm first ;D ;D
-
Is there any similarity in the tri-bike adjacent geometry to this concept from around 1991?
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1293665-road-test-bike-review-1991-clark-kent-ax-1-alexi-grewal.html (https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1293665-road-test-bike-review-1991-clark-kent-ax-1-alexi-grewal.html)
Very cool article. It's not a bike I am familiar with.
The relative intent is the same. Obviously, there is a vast difference between the quintessential race bike geo and fits of this decade vs. 3 decades ago. Some elements, like the steep STA and the long front center relative to the CS lengths, are similar, but we also need to keep in mind that bar geometries are different, as are the ways that saddles fit / the lengths of their rails. Given that this bike faded into obscurity, I hope its different this time around.
-
This should be final version and we do steepen the STA.
Wouldn't the overall effective top tube length (figure O) shorten with a steeper seat tube angle?
For a size Large, the top tube length (figure O) is the same on both the old and newly updated geometry chart 564mm
-
This should be final version and we do steepen the STA.
Please also consider increasing the BB drop to at least 75mm. Everyone is on 30mm+ tires and short cranks. 70mm is outdated.
-
So while yes I would appreciate seeing a more progressive approach to frame design, I also know first-hand how finicky athletes can be. At least here in Chicago-land. They mostly just want budget alternative to brands they are already well familiar with.
This pretty much captures the winning recipe behind the strong sales of Chinese frames.
"Progressive" design, geometry and looks can be a hit or a miss, which is a risk you might not want to take as a company knowing you want your investment to pay off. In particular with new technology and designs like a special steerer tube/ fork require a lot of testing, iterations and hence time, because in the field failures and recalls can cost you a lot of money as a company. So I beleive XMCS made a good choice with their aero frame.
-
I am perhaps a little more modest, and I was satisfied with the original frame geometry. However, I am more interested in the approximate price and availability of larger frames. ;)
-
First, because there is still a lot of learning about this concept left to do, and a lot of potential UCI regulations that could reduce your investment to rubble overnight. I look at VB, and I do not see that kind of bike unless you are looking at the larger two sizes. If anything, it's more of a toe dipped into the water to create some differentiation. I DO see it with Ridley, and there is a lot to learn by looking at how people are actually riding the Noah Fast 3.0 in real life, but those bikes are pretty rare outside of situations where you see riders sponsored by Ridley.
But the bigger issue is that even with the Ridley existing, it's still mostly a novel and niche concept. On the average 30-person group ride, 0-1 persons are thinking about this. In my experience, that one person is either a serious crit racer or a high-level triathlete.
I agree that the sort of geo you're talking about works, but its mostly a niche concept for a reason. If you're not always in "speed mode" that sort of geometry is either wasted or not comfortable. I've not been on a Noah Fast, so grain of salt, but practically every review says the same thing, "great bike, single focus". The sl8 and their ilk are popular not because they're progressive, but because the are "progressive enough" while still being absolutely wonderful all around bikes to ride daily.
I doubt the market of "serious crit racers and high level triathletes" would support Peter's ambitions.
-
I categorically disagree that progressive geometry is uncomfortable. Reviewers tried to set the noah up like their 73 sta climbing bike and they found it uncomfortable. I find my "progressively" set up bike way more comfortable than it was with a traditional set up, and I find myself wanting an even steeper sta (75ish rn) and more reach. Whenever I've heard of somebody who did try a properly set up progressive fit bike, the feedback has always been positive
-
I categorically disagree that progressive geometry is uncomfortable. Reviewers tried to set the noah up like their 73 sta climbing bike and they found it uncomfortable. I find my "progressively" set up bike way more comfortable than it was with a traditional set up, and I find myself wanting an even steeper sta (75ish rn) and more reach. Whenever I've heard of somebody who did try a properly set up progressive fit bike, the feedback has always been positive
Isn't having too much weight in the front a problem for many people? Which can cause pain in the hands, wrists, shoulders etc. Maybe I need to understand this fit more.
-
Isn't having too much weight in the front a problem for many people? Which can cause pain in the hands, wrists, shoulders etc. Maybe I need to understand this fit more.
https://youtu.be/t0Z2ISsJ3rY
-
If weight on the hands is a problem for someone, they shouldn't be looking at race oriented bikes in the first place and buy an endurance bike.
-
I agree that the sort of geo you're talking about works, but its mostly a niche concept for a reason. If you're not always in "speed mode" that sort of geometry is either wasted or not comfortable. I've not been on a Noah Fast, so grain of salt, but practically every review says the same thing, "great bike, single focus". The sl8 and their ilk are popular not because they're progressive, but because the are "progressive enough" while still being absolutely wonderful all around bikes to ride daily.
I doubt the market of "serious crit racers and high level triathletes" would support Peter's ambitions.
Agree that the market that has a strong desire for that product today is too niche and its probably too much of a lift to try and grow it for a company like XMCS. It could be like MTB tires for gravel race bikes, where it started with a 27.5 niche for ultra endurance gravel racers and is turning into a requirement for new frames, but at the 29er size. Where is is right now is probably not where it will be if it takes off. That uncertainty is an opportunity but also a risk.
Disagree on why it's a niche concept. It's easiest to think of the modern iteration as moving the BB back rather than changing multiple numbers, but the problem is that most people believe in the church of stack and reach; we are literally changing the location of the reference point for the geometry, so most people think it's this huge change they can't adjust to. The perception of it being a huge change + being "new" is just where we are with the concept.
Isn't having too much weight in the front a problem for many people? Which can cause pain in the hands, wrists, shoulders etc. Maybe I need to understand this fit more.
In my experience, no, not really if you can move your arms under your body. That does stress your core more, though.
That said, nearly everyone I know who regularly rides a bike fit like this is above 3.5w/kg in terms of FTP (just as a fitness benchmark), with a lot of us over 4 or 4.5 even in our detrained winter state. Those higher sustained outputs mean that when riding, we naturally have much less weight through our hands. The counter to that is that even those fit folks do a lot of social riding and lower-intensity riding, and don't seem to complain about it.
-
I categorically disagree that progressive geometry is uncomfortable. Reviewers tried to set the noah up like their 73 sta climbing bike and they found it uncomfortable. I find my "progressively" set up bike way more comfortable than it was with a traditional set up, and I find myself wanting an even steeper sta (75ish rn) and more reach. Whenever I've heard of somebody who did try a properly set up progressive fit bike, the feedback has always been positive
If weight on the hands is a problem for someone, they shouldn't be looking at race oriented bikes in the first place and buy an endurance bike.
"Except for all the people who can't ride them, these fits are great!"
(Shitposting aside, you reckon "properly set up" includes short cranks?)
-
Request the handlebars have some extra long reach so I can rest my forearms on the tops (with my hands on the hoods) in an aero 90 degree elbow position, and stay there for hours. Do this to the maximum extent while staying within the UCI rules. Or provide two options, one within the UCI rules and then one that does not comply with the UCI rules that allows extra long reach. Thanks.
-
Request the handlebars have some extra long reach so I can rest my forearms on the tops (with my hands on the hoods) in an aero 90 degree elbow position, and stay there for hours. Do this to the maximum extent while staying within the UCI rules. Or provide two options, one within the UCI rules and then one that does not comply with the UCI rules that allows extra long reach. Thanks.
Fuck UCI we want aero and comfort all the way
-
Fuck UCI we want aero and comfort all the way
It'd make it awful to to steer but I can see the aero advantage in a bike built around a short top tube, short stem and long reach narrow bars.
-
If weight on the hands is a problem for someone, they shouldn't be looking at race oriented bikes in the first place and buy an endurance bike.
My hand numbness subsided when I went with a 40mm longer stem and shifted my saddle forward
I don't think people need to be super fit for a high and long position.
-
Wouldn't the overall effective top tube length (figure O) shorten with a steeper seat tube angle?
For a size Large, the top tube length (figure O) is the same on both the old and newly updated geometry chart 564mm
Hope that you review both of these Pat. US needs a new value frame now that other brands have gone mainstream and more expensive. Geo charts looks good to me
-
It'd make it awful to to steer but I can see the aero advantage in a bike built around a short top tube, short stem and long reach narrow bars.
I dont think so. Having a 140 mm stem and 80 mm handlebar reach which isnt strange nowadays is the same for handling as 120 reach bars and 100 stem
-
So, we are making two new framesets for 2026, haven't named them yet.
it would be great to have the non aero frame just with a more aero and thin seat post... and not a more round one