Chinertown
Chinese Carbon Road Bikes => Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components => Topic started by: Joda55 on February 10, 2026, 08:18:50 PM
-
I'm looking at building a new bike and with so many alternatives not sure which frame to go with.
Would appreciate help picking one.
So far I've been looking at the following frames but open to new suggestions as well.
LightCarbon LCR018-D
LightCarbon LCR0X-D
TanTan TT-X65
XM CarbonSpeed Gran Tourismo
I want the frame as aero as possible but preferably not with too aggressive geometry.
Also going to attach TT cockpit on it (thinking from either BikeDoc or Balugoe), for chasing Strava KOMs.
Clearance for 32 mm tyres is a bonus but not a must. Will be buying wheels from XMCS I think.
Since I'm very short on money the LCR018-D seems like a good choice but I'm afraid the frame shape isn't as aerodynamic as the others. What do you think, how many watts penalty at say 40 or 50km/h from frame alone, compared to the others?
Would chose the Gran Turismo right away if money wasn't a concern. Unsure of how much better the one piece mold and higher quality carbon actually feels on the road.
The TanTan X65 looks decent but TanTan seems to have quality issues.
LCR0X-D looks ok as well but apparently only room for 28 mm tyres and the frame is older than the others as well.
Thankful if you have any input.
-
Each of this bikes have separate threads when you can find all the info. What else you need? You want others to make a decision for you or what ?
-
Each of this bikes have separate threads when you can find all the info. What else you need? You want others to make a decision for you or what ?
I have researched quite a lot on each bike and read the threads for each. But not all of it, that is hundreds of pages. So if someone has gathered more info already and gone through the same thought process/decision their input would really help.
Also there isn’t any dedicated thread to the LCR0X-D and there is the possibility it could fit wider tyres, which would make the decision quite easy. And most of the quality concerns with TanTan seem older, not sure if it is a problem for the TT-x65.
So I don’t really see the issue?
-
LightCarbon LCR018-D if you want to spend under 1k$ other situation go with XMCS. None of them was wind tunnel tested so aero is irrelevant. Both have some aero advantages in the shape and as you can find out that even Seka Spear can perform good in the wind tunnel tests.
So I guess your choice should be Lightcarbon frame. There's a long thread to read.
-
LightCarbon LCR018-D if you want to spend under 1k$ other situation go with XMCS. None of them was wind tunnel tested so aero is irrelevant. Both have some aero advantages in the shape and as you can find out that even Seka Spear can perform good in the wind tunnel tests.
So I guess your choice should be Lightcarbon frame. There's a long thread to read.
So no-no to the TanTan you say?
Yeah I see what you mean by no wind tunnel testing but the LCR018-D looks bulkier, especially the downtube. So I guess you could make some estimations at least..
-
TanTan is hit and miss I would say. The other two are more consistent in the quality. Bulkier downtube should be better for aero.
-
If your position is shit it doesn’t really matter what frame you’re on.
If it matters to you that much, get a second hand frame that has validated numbers in a tunnel. An old propel or whatever.
Or buy a rule 28 aero bra and save 28watts. An average aero frame would save you much much less than that.
-
Yeah, the LCR018-D is not a frame to go segment hunting with.
It’s a fantastic all round bike and I use it every day, but it’s just not overly fast and definitely not the most accomplished climber.
For example, my 8 year old Aeroad copy is a much faster frame.
(I ride 6 days a week and now have lots of comparative data for the same routes on both bikes).
Not overly scientific, but the results are consistently in favour of the Aeroad.
I’m hoping LightCarbon produce a full aero frameset this year at a good price point.
The perfect companion to the LCR018-D.
-
I'm looking at building a new bike and with so many alternatives not sure which frame to go with.
Would appreciate help picking one.
So far I've been looking at the following frames but open to new suggestions as well.
LightCarbon LCR018-D
LightCarbon LCR0X-D
TanTan TT-X65
XM CarbonSpeed Gran Tourismo
I want the frame as aero as possible but preferably not with too aggressive geometry.
Also going to attach TT cockpit on it (thinking from either BikeDoc or Balugoe), for chasing Strava KOMs.
Clearance for 32 mm tyres is a bonus but not a must. Will be buying wheels from XMCS I think.
Since I'm very short on money the LCR018-D seems like a good choice but I'm afraid the frame shape isn't as aerodynamic as the others. What do you think, how many watts penalty at say 40 or 50km/h from frame alone, compared to the others?
Would chose the Gran Turismo right away if money wasn't a concern. Unsure of how much better the one piece mold and higher quality carbon actually feels on the road.
The TanTan X65 looks decent but TanTan seems to have quality issues.
LCR0X-D looks ok as well but apparently only room for 28 mm tyres and the frame is older than the others as well.
Thankful if you have any input.
You have really diverse choice of frames here, half of which are in endurance category, and other in aero race bike category. You sure you really know what you want? Gran Turismo is probably the nicest frame out of all you mentioned, but if you are short on money, than go for LCR018, the feedback is generally positive on this one.
LCR0X chainstays can fit 32 mm tires, I wouldn't put anything wider than 33 mm of actual width. Here i put review on my old LCR0X and issues I've encountered during it's lifetime https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,5335.msg67681.html#msg67681 It is definitely a bike for better roads and it is very aggressive in geometry - proceed only if you have quite long torso, otherwise it is nearly impossible to achieve paws without a huge stack of spacers.
-
TanTan is hit and miss I would say. The other two are more consistent in the quality. Bulkier downtube should be better for aero.
A shame, the TT-X65 would be an ideal choice for me otherwise. Think I'll skip it then.
If your position is shit it doesn’t really matter what frame you’re on.
If it matters to you that much, get a second hand frame that has validated numbers in a tunnel. An old propel or whatever.
Or buy a rule 28 aero bra and save 28watts. An average aero frame would save you much much less than that.
Yeah I could but most sellers here are asking for too much for their bikes.
But the aero bra!! Was planning on buying a speed suit, didn't know about the bra but will definitely get one. Been doing a bit too much gym training during the winter so it should be especially useful now, thanks for the advice.
Yeah, the LCR018-D is not a frame to go segment hunting with.
It’s a fantastic all round bike and I use it every day, but it’s just not overly fast and definitely not the most accomplished climber.
For example, my 8 year old Aeroad copy is a much faster frame.
(I ride 6 days a week and now have lots of comparative data for the same routes on both bikes).
Not overly scientific, but the results are consistently in favour of the Aeroad.
I’m hoping LightCarbon produce a full aero frameset this year at a good price point.
The perfect companion to the LCR018-D.
Yeah I've been asking them if they plan on making an new aero bike with bigger tyre clearance but they just keep on refering to the LCR018-D.
You have really diverse choice of frames here, half of which are in endurance category, and other in aero race bike category. You sure you really know what you want? Gran Turismo is probably the nicest frame out of all you mentioned, but if you are short on money, than go for LCR018, the feedback is generally positive on this one.
LCR0X chainstays can fit 32 mm tires, I wouldn't put anything wider than 33 mm of actual width. Here i put review on my old LCR0X and issues I've encountered during it's lifetime https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,5335.msg67681.html#msg67681 It is definitely a bike for better roads and it is very aggressive in geometry - proceed only if you have quite long torso, otherwise it is nearly impossible to achieve paws without a huge stack of spacers.
I'm quite sure of what I want: an aero racer with not too aggressive geometry and room for 32mm tyres. The XMCS Gran Turismo in size 56 would be ideal, were it not for the price tag. I'm 185 cm so the LCR0X-D in size 59 should work too, the stack/reach ratio is not too far off then and I can adjust with spacers and stem.
But great news with the actual tyre clearance on the LCRX-D. I think that seals the deal. Thank you!
I will probably be getting these wheels to it: https://xmcarbonspeed.cc/products/carbon-speed-700c-tubeless-65mm-depth-26-mm-internal-width-disc-brake-gravel-bike-carbon-wheelset
Do you think 32mm should be ok then? They have 26mm inner rim width.
Something that bothers me though is that when reviewing the Winspace T1600 hambini said the frame shouldn't be equiped with larger than 28 mm wheels/tyres because there was a significant drag penalty with wider tyres on it. I do wonder if that is a problem with other frames as as well.
-
No models from other brands worth looking into that I might have missed?
-
I was looking for frames myself and I tried making a list here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lEVHfNDi_b08PiRnSs6TRNVyK6llmW6w7Ve8tenMNXg/edit?usp=sharing
I still do not know which one to go for :o
-
Yeah, the LCR018-D is not a frame to go segment hunting with.
It’s a fantastic all round bike and I use it every day, but it’s just not overly fast and definitely not the most accomplished climber.
For example, my 8 year old Aeroad copy is a much faster frame.
(I ride 6 days a week and now have lots of comparative data for the same routes on both bikes).
Not overly scientific, but the results are consistently in favour of the Aeroad.
I’m hoping LightCarbon produce a full aero frameset this year at a good price point.
The perfect companion to the LCR018-D.
Would you mind making a thread on this, with as much bro science as you are willing to throw at it?
I'm curious.
The Nero show gave the 18D a fast bike badge, confidently, i thought that was interesting.
More importantly, i did read on the forum someone saying the exact opposite with what felt a similar conviction (but i think less data).
I dont have a horse in the race, but it IS interesting & relevant.
Re. the OP's question: i wouldn't buy a tantan because it's tantan. I wouldn't get Peter's frame because you specifically say your budget is limited, and the frame is many things, but good value is not one of them. if your list is fixed, then i'd say 18D, but if you dont even care about 32C, pretty sure there are faster frames available in your budget.
-
No models from other brands worth looking into that I might have missed?
You could ask speeder cycling if theyll sell you a sc-r49d https://www.speedercycling.com/Carbon-Integrated-Road-Disc-Frameset-SC-R49D-_p399.html
-
You could ask speeder cycling if theyll sell you a sc-r49d https://www.speedercycling.com/Carbon-Integrated-Road-Disc-Frameset-SC-R49D-_p399.html
I just emailed them. Is that a Winspace in disguise? (That’s why you said if they’ll sell me one?
-
Re. the OP's question: i wouldn't buy a tantan because it's tantan. I wouldn't get Peter's frame because you specifically say your budget is limited, and the frame is many things, but good value is not one of them. if your list is fixed, then i'd say 18D, but if you dont even care about 32C, pretty sure there are faster frames available in your budget.
Definitely not a fixed list! Just the first ones that have caught my eye.
If you have any other suggestions they are welcome.
-
Definitely not a fixed list! Just the first ones that have caught my eye.
If you have any other suggestions they are welcome.
The new Mondince MIGHT make sense, with all the applicable caveats.
https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,6308.0.html
I got very excited about it myself last summer, then things went sideways a bit.
Beyond that, i think people here will have good suggestions. I'm happy w my frame but it's really quite dated by now so i assume it's worth getting something with a more modern layup and stuff (Long teng 268). that's half the reason why i considered the Mondince, i would like to see if i can feel the difference in any way. i genuinely dont know, and know even less if it mattered. As long as the bike fits, and is fit for purpose, we're probably over thinking everything massively.
-
I'm quite sure of what I want: an aero racer with not too aggressive geometry and room for 32mm tyres. The XMCS Gran Turismo in size 56 would be ideal, were it not for the price tag. I'm 185 cm so the LCR0X-D in size 59 should work too, the stack/reach ratio is not too far off then and I can adjust with spacers and stem.
But great news with the actual tyre clearance on the LCRX-D. I think that seals the deal. Thank you!
I will probably be getting these wheels to it: https://xmcarbonspeed.cc/products/carbon-speed-700c-tubeless-65mm-depth-26-mm-internal-width-disc-brake-gravel-bike-carbon-wheelset
Do you think 32mm should be ok then? They have 26mm inner rim width.
I have these rims on my current bike, 58 mm deep. 30c tubeless tire expands to 33,5-34 mm which will make it 'aero-profiled' BUT in turn you have reliability disadvantage: it is much easier to damage the rim and get a snake bite with 105% rule (speaking from my own experience it costs me 3/6 races, than I dumped the combo). If i were you I wouldn't go wider than 24 internal for this frame at least for the rear where you can easily ignore aero claims.
Hambini talks theoretical bollocks - Dylan Johnson tested same tires of different width in wind tunnel and IIRC, you get diminishing returns in the realm of 40 mm+ and yet win significantly in the rolling resistance. Don't go for 28 mm unless you live in Swiss alps with perfect asphalt. It is simply not worth it.
To sum up: you may pick this rim for the front wheel (LCR0X fork could accomodate anything up to 36 mm) but choose something more narrow for the rear in order to not expose the rim. Or just pick more narrow wheelset (~23-24 mm).
I just emailed them. Is that a Winspace in disguise? (That’s why you said if they’ll sell me one?
Speeder is Adapt/Tavelo. They sale frames to State/Oak/Parapera and many others. I have SC-R55D, great frame.
-
You could ask speeder cycling if theyll sell you a sc-r49d https://www.speedercycling.com/Carbon-Integrated-Road-Disc-Frameset-SC-R49D-_p399.html
They are available apparently! Just got this quote from them:
SC-R49D frame + fork + seatpost: US$630/set
SC-RH02 handlebar + stem: US$150/pcs
Thru axle: US$20/set
NO.55R headset: US$30/set
Shipping cost: US$130 (duty-free)
The SC-R49D could work but the reach is kind of long, the size 57 has 420 mm with 578 mm stack.
OTH that might be a good thing actually since I am planning on adding a TT cockpit with aero bars.. so then I could set the saddle a bit more forward instead..
The new Mondince MIGHT make sense, with all the applicable caveats.
https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,6308.0.html
I got very excited about it myself last summer, then things went sideways a bit.
Beyond that, i think people here will have good suggestions. I'm happy w my frame but it's really quite dated by now so i assume it's worth getting something with a more modern layup and stuff (Long teng 268). that's half the reason why i considered the Mondince, i would like to see if i can feel the difference in any way. i genuinely dont know, and know even less if it mattered. As long as the bike fits, and is fit for purpose, we're probably over thinking everything massively.
The Mondince does look promising. I will add it to my list!
I have these rims on my current bike, 58 mm deep. 30c tubeless tire expands to 33,5-34 mm which will make it 'aero-profiled' BUT in turn you have reliability disadvantage: it is much easier to damage the rim and get a snake bite with 105% rule (speaking from my own experience it costs me 3/6 races, than I dumped the combo). If i were you I wouldn't go wider than 24 internal for this frame at least for the rear where you can easily ignore aero claims.
Hambini talks theoretical bollocks - Dylan Johnson tested same tires of different width in wind tunnel and IIRC, you get diminishing returns in the realm of 40 mm+ and yet win significantly in the rolling resistance. Don't go for 28 mm unless you live in Swiss alps with perfect asphalt. It is simply not worth it.
To sum up: you may pick this rim for the front wheel (LCR0X fork could accomodate anything up to 36 mm) but choose something more narrow for the rear in order to not expose the rim. Or just pick more narrow wheelset (~23-24 mm).
Speeder is Adapt/Tavelo. They sale frames to State/Oak/Parapera and many others. I have SC-R55D, great frame.
Hambini wasn't talking about 28mm as an upper limit in general, just for that particular frame (t1600) which he did wind tunnel testing on.
And I'm not too concerned about the 105 rule for the rear wheel/tyre but I wouldn't want to size down! Instead I'd want to have a marketed 32 mm tyre for the rear and a more fitting (30 mm) for the front.
The roads here are awful but strangely enough punctures are very rare for me, not a single one for last two seasons running latex tubes and tubeless on road and gravel bike. And I am not planning on racing, just for chasing KOMs.
As it stands now I am thinking about these frames:
Speeder SC-R49D
Mondince FM126
Velobuild 368
I am leaning towards the latter for now as it looks to be more aero than the other two (but to be honest what do I know). Will wait until march at least before buying though since they are talking about making the carbon layup lighter.
Thank you all for helping out, much appreciated.
-
I have these rims on my current bike, 58 mm deep. 30c tubeless tire expands to 33,5-34 mm which will make it 'aero-profiled' BUT in turn you have reliability disadvantage: it is much easier to damage the rim and get a snake bite with 105% rule (speaking from my own experience it costs me 3/6 races, than I dumped the combo). If i were you I wouldn't go wider than 24 internal for this frame at least for the rear where you can easily ignore aero claims.
Btw,
Just wanted to ask if you have tried mounting 32c tires on your XMCS rims? And if so how much did they expand to?
And have you tried riding on better/packed gravel roads with those wheels? There are many such roads in my area and 30/32c is probably around the limit where it's not too uncomfortable or risk for flats is not too high.
-
Btw,
Just wanted to ask if you have tried mounting 32c tires on your XMCS rims? And if so how much did they expand to?
And have you tried riding on better/packed gravel roads with those wheels? There are many such roads in my area and 30/32c is probably around the limit where it's not too uncomfortable or risk for flats is not too high.
I received the wheels only few weeks ago, road conditions and weather are terrible for road bike at least until the end of the month. I used to have 28/30c combo, which on 21/28 ext/int rim expands to 29-29,5 and 31 mm respectively, and after initial installation of 30c on 26/34 XMCS I decided to order 32c tire and use 30/32c combo instead. I expect 32c tire to bulb up to ~35-35,5 mm which is sufficient to cover the rim on the rear.
I used to have 38c slick tires on my gravel bike for commutes and tamed gravel and it was really good and fast on hardpack. I think the combo will work quite well in your conditions. Just don't hit potholes and roots and at 35 kmh :)
-
I received the wheels only few weeks ago, road conditions and weather are terrible for road bike at least until the end of the month. I used to have 28/30c combo, which on 21/28 ext/int rim expands to 29-29,5 and 31 mm respectively, and after initial installation of 30c on 26/34 XMCS I decided to order 32c tire and use 30/32c combo instead. I expect 32c tire to bulb up to ~35-35,5 mm which is sufficient to cover the rim on the rear.
I used to have 38c slick tires on my gravel bike for commutes and tamed gravel and it was really good and fast on hardpack. I think the combo will work quite well in your conditions. Just don't hit potholes and roots and at 35 kmh :)
Hi,
Have you checked how much the 32c bulbed up to?
Just ordered a pair of XMCS 78/65mm wheels! :D
Plan on getting get Vittoria Corsa Pro's for them and debating whether to go with 30/32c or 30/30c for them.
-
Hi,
Have you checked how much the 32c bulbed up to?
Just ordered a pair of XMCS 78/65mm wheels! :D
Plan on getting get Vittoria Corsa Pro's for them and debating whether to go with 30/32c or 30/30c for them.
After a while 30c bulbed to ~33,5-33,8 mm and 32c to 34 mm. Given very little width difference but considerable weight penalty, I will switch to 30c/30c once the roads are fixed. I use P Zero RS TLR and they have decent sidewall protection. On the contrary, Vittoria is notorious for having very thin sidewall. According to BRR, the latest iteration of Corsa Pros have quite narrow central thread so you basically would ride on a very thin sidewalls. If you want to stick with Vittorias, it is safer to use 30c/32c.
-
After a while 30c bulbed to ~33,5-33,8 mm and 32c to 34 mm. Given very little width difference but considerable weight penalty, I will switch to 30c/30c once the roads are fixed. I use P Zero RS TLR and they have decent sidewall protection. On the contrary, Vittoria is notorious for having very thin sidewall. According to BRR, the latest iteration of Corsa Pros have quite narrow central thread so you basically would ride on a very thin sidewalls. If you want to stick with Vittorias, it is safer to use 30c/32c.
Thank you! 30/32c it is then.
Will stick with the Corsa Pro’s since they are a bit faster and also have just the color I want on the sidewalls (maybe a bit silly latter reason but yeah that’s how it is ;D )
-
Just ordered a pair of XMCS 78/65mm wheels! :D
UCI limit for rims profile is now 65mm for all mass start races. Just sain'. OC irrelevant for everyone not racing under UCI rules.
-
UCI limit for rims profile is now 65mm for all mass start races. Just sain'. OC irrelevant for everyone not racing under UCI rules.
Oh hadn’t thought about that.. not that I’m going to races with it but for resale purposes.
But the Velobuild VB-R-368 that I’m going to put them on isn’t UCI approved so you wouldn’t be able to race it anyway would you?
-
I just can refere to races in Germany, where I personally know some Commissairs as well:
At amateur races, I've never seen Commissaires check frames for UCI listing as race legal.
What we see is checking of gearing restrictions for the younger classes, 33mm tire width at cyclo-cross races, position measurements on TT bikes, and the newer UCI restriction, that is inward angle of the hoods and bar width. All things that are more or less obviuos. Change of deepth of rims can be expected to be checked here and there as well IMHO, as it's a new rule.
To give one example on forks and frames: There's 2 forks for the Cervelo P5 rim break TT, one approved by the UCI and one with a deeper profile that was build for triathlon with better aerodynamics. We've seem somene on the podium at the TT nationals with the triathlon fork, and nothing happend. That was after the UCI change that made deeper profiles legal for frames and rims, but still untill today this specific triathlon fork is not listet in the UCI list of legal frames/forks, and therefore should be illegal to race.
So after all I would not worry to race an unapproved frame, if it is not fully outside the rules. Nobody will ever check on local amateur level, nor propably at national level.
If you're responsible for a full team, and there' sponsors that need to be made happy, that's a different story, and you shoud be more cautious:
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/british-continental-team-saint-piran-admit-to-faking-uci-approval-for-unmarked-chinese-frames/
-
I just can refere to races in Germany, where I personally know some Commissairs as well:
At amateur races, I've never seen Commissaires check frames for UCI listing as race legal.
What we see is checking of gearing restrictions for the younger classes, 33mm tire width at cyclo-cross races, position measurements on TT bikes, and the newer UCI restriction, that is inward angle of the hoods and bar width. All things that are more or less obviuos. Change of deepth of rims can be expected to be checked here and there as well IMHO, as it's a new rule.
To give one example on forks and frames: There's 2 forks for the Cervelo P5 rim break TT, one approved by the UCI and one with a deeper profile that was build for triathlon with better aerodynamics. We've seem somene on the podium at the TT nationals with the triathlon fork, and nothing happend. That was after the UCI change that made deeper profiles legal for frames and rims, but still untill today this specific triathlon fork is not listet in the UCI list of legal frames/forks, and therefore should be illegal to race.
So after all I would not worry to race an unapproved frame, if it is not fully outside the rules. Nobody will ever check on local amateur level, nor propably at national level.
If you're responsible for a full team, and there' sponsors that need to be made happy, that's a different story, and you shoud be more cautious:
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/british-continental-team-saint-piran-admit-to-faking-uci-approval-for-unmarked-chinese-frames/
I see, makes sense.
Think I'll stick with the 78 mm rear anyway. Only "racing" I will be doing is chasing Strava KOMs.
Hopefully the deeper rear wheel will save a couple of watts. And it looks better with the Velobuild since there's so much carbon on that frame. Ideally I'd want a deeper wheel for the front as well but I'm worried about cross-wind stability.