More interested to see what shifter transition is like and if any of these come with a longer reach for an actual aero hoods position (rather than just to fit people who need to do some yoga / go to the gym)

Quote from: alncalvo on October 12, 2026, 01:04:54 PM
After receiving the frame, I'm going to assemble the components little by little. I have to buy everything, and since it involves a lot of money, I'll be spreading the process out over a long period. Today, I installed the seatpost and the stem. I didn't have any trouble with the seatpost; with a bit of carbon paste, it slid in with just a little bit of force. I have two questions regarding the stem. Did you install the lower bearing cup on the stem? Is the spacer shown in the photo necessary?

This isnt' the same frameset? That has an integrated aero post? What mould is that?

If you're riding trails that require a dropper, you probably also need suspension.

You can pull gravel either way. Sure, you can fit 2.3s, and ride single track, and why not a drop will be great, although the nature of drop handlebars limit your ability to shift your weight in the same way as flat handlebars, so the advantages reduced. For most people gravel is much less technical, even if it is fast. Whilst we can all joke about matej mohoric famously fitting one to his road bike, realistically The juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

I mean for a real answer, it's because the market sector has been wondering what to do with gravel for a while, and the idea of gravel as a competitive sport, where people are sold stuff aspirationally and that aspiration is to be mads or Keegan, rather than a bike packing adventure it's how they've decided to make money. Look how many modern western bikes now come with aerodynamic seatposts, even though they are phenomenally uncomfortable.

It's also easy to be patronising. I am a very competent mountain biker, I have raised ews and xcm internationally. When I race gravel I'm just not challenged enough to need a dropper. But for 90% of the course, descending a loose fire Road is terrifying.

That's a ton of saddle setback and a very short stem for that size.

Can I ask what about the geometry made you fit it like that, rather than an inline or forward position and a 110 or 120?

If you have proper calipers can you do total Gap at the tire both at front fork and the rear

Quote from: crazyravr on June 18, 2026, 12:31:32 PM
Also here all in one spot.
www.aliexpress.com/item/1005012485497441.html

I was looking at these but for a frame bag, thats too small. And for the top tube bag, you should skip the zippers and go magnetic.

Ordered. If you need more frame storage that's fine but this isn't what this is for. It's for max 300km races not bikepacking


I will agree that the top tube closure with a zip is not as good. I have the profile version which is aero but closing it and opening it in a proper race is a bloody nause.

I'd want something in the range of
XS 470
Small 480
Medium 490
Large 500

Etc.

That probably allows more casual riders to size down and still keep sufficient stack, for some people to run shorter stems if they prefer that handling, and for people to get high and forwards if they want to race it.

I have ordered a Cima GR but I'm waiting for these three new cheap 57mm frames to mature to order a new frame for my girlfriend's bike. The SPCycle had the better geometry of the two out before this

Quote from: RiP on June 16, 2026, 05:14:33 AM
It's basically the same frame as the Mondince FM346 (except for the seat tube shape/profile, but the geo chart is the same), discussed in this topic: https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,7193.0.html


This TanTan frame was also mentioned here: https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,7298.0.html

I think it looks identical, maybe the profile looks different just from the photo?

Quote from: jfcb on June 17, 2026, 04:30:06 AM
you end up in the top 20 in the age group and first quarter of the elites.

Whilst that is where I sit, average speeds aren't particularly useful as these races are pretty stochastic. It's more about efficiency where it matters e.g. the last 20km of the Gralloch has a long pedalable downhill where I broke away from the lead group at 55kph, and then when they (inevitably) caught me we still averaged 45kph for the last 15k.

Quote from: eddiecycle on June 16, 2026, 01:57:23 PM
If you're racing in areas flat enough to benefit from bigger chainrings than 46T

Far from it: I race a 50 for European UCI events.

This really all feels a little like an unfit roadie tries gravel problem that could be solved by spending more time mountain biking and or on the trainer 

Obviously I am being as exceptionalist as those saying 44 is fine (it isn't, but also not everyone has a 5wkg threshold) and slow people get value from aero bikes. It just seems like, of the compromises they could have made, this was the worst of all choices.

I would have extended the chainstay 5mm, taken the clearance gain and been able to fit a 50.

Quote from: Requiem84 on June 15, 2026, 01:27:14 PM
Which one of those fits a 57mm WAM in the rear with 6mm(+) clearance though?

If you widen the chain stay for more clearance, it will obviously impact the space for the chain ring at some point. Particularly if you keep the CS at 425mm.

I'll duck down until Eurobike for now ^^.

Argon 18 Antimatter clears 55+6mm with 52t front ring and 425 chain stays.

But the thing is that those are all in many ways competing priorities that don't make sense given the position of the bike.

It is advertised as an aerodynamic gravel race bike. Which means that it has to be fast. Fast is defined as low aerodynamic drag and enabling low drivetrain losses and low crr losses. If you can't fit more than a 46, you are losing non-significant watts from your drivetrain and you will struggle to get a good cadence.

If it was a bike-packing or ultra endurance bike with mounts, you'd care about 57mm+6mm (or even larger), but then you wouldn't mind the chainstays and you'd have no need for the low geometry and focus on aerodynamics.

Don't get me started on the meaninglessness of the 425 chainstay obsession and its impact on packaging.

Wow. I honestly thought that chainring rumour was so improbable as to be a joke. I made this point on another thread, but stuff like this really highlights the immaturity of some of the Chinese OEM to consumer markets. I wonder if the team can fix it before open release?

I just can't get my head around those geometry charts. Obviously, the geometry is wrong and that isn't the reach. But I don't think they understand how important getting that right is. I mean the XMCS aero gravel bike must fit more than a 44t front ring but that's what everyone thinks right now and that will have cost them hundreds of preorders.

There is so much good coming from OEMs in china but these things really demonstrate that the market just isn't mature and you still need to be a really canny buyer to make the most of it. Sometimes they strike gold e.g. the GR201 (of many sorts).

Sometimes they don't know what shape a bike should be.

Quote from: Kar25 on June 11, 2026, 04:47:46 AM
These are supposed to be the color options from Tavelo Arden... Is anyone else disappointed or is it just me 🤦‍♂️

Why don't they just release the cracked ice green blue colour they previewed the frame with?

That was lovely.

Quote from: zett on June 04, 2026, 06:06:25 AM
We're still talking gravel though. Speeds are significantly lower than road, except for descents, and guess what, you hardly need to pedal for those. I agree that it would be nice to have some reserves for larger chainrings, but that this frame is "dead" for race gravel use is still quite the hyperbole.

If you don't need more than a 42 on an aero gravel bike then you have no need for an aero gravel bike and are wasting your time racing.

Which is why the suggestion is so preposterous that it can't be true.

Quote from: pandaGravel15 on May 25, 2026, 08:10:34 AM
You're right, it looks fantastic, and I haven't heard much about it on forums, but it's very expensive and I was hoping for something cheaper.

I was also recommended this COOSPO https://it.aliexpress.com/item/1005009870451145.html, which is very similar. What do you think?

I don't think it looks at all similar - the battery can't be changed so you can't carry multiple for overnight stuff.

I just found this on AliExpress:
Lumintop 21700 rechargeable LED flashlight B01 USB Type-C rechargeable 850 luments anti-glare for city walk camping work
https://a.aliexpress.com/_EGPFe0O

This is the only other well known exchangable 21700 Torch.