• Which sizes would you want first? Please make whatever size your riders can ride first. While I think its best to design to benchmarks based on frame properties rather than looks, you don't really know until you get real feedback from riders of different weights and riding preferences (e.g., 40km social rider vs. 200km training rides)
• What matters most to you in a frame? The market is flooded with great frames right now. I think QuickPro has done a really good job growing and they did it by sponsoring grassroots racing and teams. What matters to me most is geometry and the right fit. I think what sells is supporting racing and helping build a community around the sport--> to this point I personally would be developing a progressive geometry allrounder like the Ridley Falcn 2.0. The reason? While it has less appeal to the general market, this kind of geometry makes you a lot faster--faster than any aero tubes can; but it requires education. To me, this is an opportunity, as it is both a conversation starter and a way to focus content about your brand (e.g., have influencers build the bike, fitters collaborate by providing them guidance on translating the fit, and then have the influencer do real-world aero testing either using the zero elevation method or using an aerostick you loan out for this purpose). By not making an all-out aero bike, you can hopefully focus on ride feel / a competitive weight without needing to spend money in a wind tunnel. By educating/proving a fit-based advantage, you get marketing content that carries a conversation and data; and builds a community around riders chasing non-marginal performance gains
• What tire width do you usually run on the road? I run 28mm tires on my road bike, but I am sub 60kg. I think I weighed 58 this morning. I personally wouldn't buy a new bike that doesn't clear 35mm tires for future flexibilty / in the case i want to use the bike for a bit of riding on smooth gravel roads or something. As a frame brand I think you need to also support use of 32mm or even 35mm tires for larger riders that need that width in order to run pressures low enough that tubeless sealant still works well.
• What would you most like to see in the next update: photos, weight, or test results? A geometry chart

Quote from: klrdd on October 11, 2026, 07:24:06 AM
I am very curious how this new progresive ridley climbs, because like you i have moved to a forward position with short cranks. Also in the process of converting my old rim brake bmc to an even more progressive position - got an aftermarket zero offset seat post, swapped a 120/-17 stem for a 130/-7, and 165mm cranks (have always run narrow bars and saddle slammed forward) - so it will be interesting to see, with that setup, how it climbs compared to the longteng.

Sounds like it's less that it's not like a TCR and more that you've moved on from the staid, established geometry in favor of the new progressive trend, which is only now reaching climbing-type frames. Makes sense, and I'm curious too!

Road.cc has a perspective: https://road.cc/feature/ridley-falcn-rs-2-0-first-ride-review

Given the title: "A climbing masterpiece: A first ride review of the all-new Ridley Falcn RS 2.0 lightweight climbing bike" and the slug, which calls it "A game changer for riders"--which was probably the original title that was changed by editorial, you can guess the reviewer was a huge fan. Worth noting that the bike had a 36cm bar, but the reviewer has been a fan of narrow bars for a while, so that was already accepted, and I am guessing he is well adapted to the change. I 100% prefer my custom Ti road bike to my 266 for anything that is a hard effort. It is a progressive road geo, not that different than the Ridley Falcon 2.0- which is the closest comp to date. The main difference is that I went with a 75-degree STA to keep the flexibility to use a 25mm setback post for a more or less traditional saddle position, vs. the custom 15mm forward offset one I am currently using. The saddle position with a zero offset post would be most natural on a 76-degree STA like the Ridley. I also have about 2mm lower BB drop, 5mm shorter stays, and a similarly small difference with more reach. It's close enough that I would probably buy the Ridley off the shelf rather than get this geo made again if something bad happened to that bike.

For me, the progressive geo handles better, is more aero, and I climb faster. That said, as one of the louder voices advocating for this geo for nearly 5 years now, I've tried to keep that perspective off this thread, since it hasn't been relevant to the review of the 266 SL until now.

I like my 266 SL for what it is to me: a TCR like bike I can ride with CX tires / do some CX and commuting. It's so versatile for everything from long endurance rides on mixed surfaces to easy singletrack to hopping in a paceline.

If LTK or Permeants is reading this thread: while I would be happy to share the geo charts I have developed, I think taking the deflection-based development process you used for the 266 SL and applying it to the Falcon 2.0 geometry would make a very nice bike. If you could make the HT narrower in the center and 2-3cm deeper. That would be nice. Also, a slightly deeper/more aero seat tube would be nice too, but wouldn't make that change if it affects ride quality.

Laget are pretty expensive, and custom 3D-printed bikes won't get any cheaper soon. If anything, we are seeing companies like Waltly restrict their 3D-printed models to standard geometries because of cost issues.

The good news is the Ridley Falcn RS 2.0 has the geo people want in the S M, and L sizes (so like size 54, 56, 58 vs. like the Tarmac style geo) https://www.ridley-bikes.com/en_US/bikes/SBIFR2RID009. I personally would like to see the XS be like 5-8mm longer but its more or less fine there too. It's not the Noah, so it's likely to end up on sale, and the early press is already dispelling the nonsense that claims this kind of geo can't climb. Given that Chinese brands have leaned toward all-rounder vs. all-out aero bikes, this might help convince them that this kind of geo is viable for the mass road market.

Quote from: toxin on October 08, 2026, 02:50:06 PM
No worries there, its what I've spent most of my free time on this year and my interest has not diminished. But I set myself the challenge of creating a near production ready CAD model, which has required A LOT of learning to get my skills to the required level and the final V4 iteration is in the works now (pics).

For the topic of this discussion though, getting a carbon frame made from scratch is EXPENSIVE. I'm sure Sakizashi can tell you just what the challenges of getting your own carbon fiber product mass produced overseas are. Never mind the logistics of actually getting it out into people's hands.

The economics are hard. The investment is not insignificant, as it requires both testing and alterations. Reliably getting product is hard too. Recouping the investment is hard if you can't get enough product, on time, to sell. There are many ways to fail.

Then there is the relationship with the factory. I recently went through the design process with a manufacturer for an expensive component. We talked for a while under the very clear assumption of the 20-unit MOQ. They did the sample; it was freaking awesome. When it came time to arrange production, the MOQ was 50 units. After I pointed this out, they were like We can do 20 the first time. 100% red flag to not go forward; it's a five-figure USD investment, and the supplier feels like I'll be cool with terms that might change again. No thanks.

I understand why these things happen, but at the end of the day, is it worth it at the scale of a frame? Probably not unless you have a plan to make a viable business out of it, at which point its probably a $2500+ frameset.

Quote from: patliean1 on October 02, 2026, 06:10:25 PM
Question for the experts: How consequential is wheelbase length?

All of my bikes over the years have had a wheelbase between 995 and 1005mm. To me, I've always assumed wheelbase played a large role in how the bike corners and how stable it is at faster speeds or descending.

A size 56 (in reality a 58) in this frame is interesting. Stack of 583, reach of 406, and a front center of 620. No BBC stem required and no worries about toe overlap. The only red flags in my very amateur opinion are the the 73° seat tube angle and 1020mm wheelbase. No details on the standover height either.

Would the super long wheelbase feel like a boat or SUV? Even the size 535 could work too with a 130mm stem and 20mm of stack

Thanks in advance.

In isolation wheelbase isnt that important. Mostly longer wheel base has a larger turning diameter thats it.

In terms of an overall bikes design, it's a variable that drives stability, so longer wheelbase + slack HTA + High BB will make for a very stable bike. They contribute in slightly different ways but the thing you want to avoid is having a bike thats so stable that you are exiting the stable condition at higher speeds when there is more energy in the system. You either want to enter the stable condition and stay there or enter the stable condition and exit it early enough that you dont risk getting speed wobbles.

IMO, more important than any one variable is how weight is distributed; but thats both a fit and a bike geo thing.

The current meta is a slightly relaxed HTA and longer bike for weight distribution in the aero position + a lower BB to balance the handling.

Quote from: Willos on September 25, 2026, 04:19:27 AM
What about RD118-D-SL?

Is it the ltd266-d-sl successor?

The geometry is completely different. 266 is shaped like a race bike. 118 is short-reach.

Quote from: waltthizzney on September 13, 2026, 10:57:18 PM
do you think the medium will fit me will with enough seat post and stand over at my height (175cm with 31.5 inseam)

It should be fine. My size M w/ 35mm Conti Terra Speeds tires on 25mm IW rims is ~30in at the seatpost and ~31in HT as measured from the top of the TT to the ground.

Assuming you wear shoes, you should have no problem standing flat-footed over the bike. I am quite a bit shorter, with a ~29in inseam, and I have no issues with standover, though it's a bit snug to stand flat-footed; shoes + cleats make it OK.

Quote from: Serge_K on September 15, 2026, 08:34:12 AM
Clearance is 35+6.2+6.2mm at the rear (and prob a tad more at the front). There was confusion, and there were mistakes in previous versions of the CAD design. The attached is as per Crystal, today.
So, 39+4.2+4.2
39.4+4+4 (ISO, afaik)

This is pretty great. There are a few brands, like 3T, that would advertise this as a 38 or 39mm clearance bike using tat ISO "racing bicycle" carve out of the standard.

Could you ask them if any of the other frame dimensions were updated? If so, also ask for an updated geo chart?

Quote from: Takiyaki on September 10, 2026, 06:28:08 PM
OK wow! Thanks for confirming

Edit- what's the clearance in front?

Front clearance is the same. In my mind this bike is basically a giant TCR with 37mm of tire clearance.

I try really hard to avoid spamming the thread with how good this bike is, but in terms of weight and ride feel, I think it's the rare sub $1K open mold frame as good thats as good as a branded frame. Unfortunately, it's a bit like the TCR and Aethos: it looks dated from an aero perspective which is likely a reason this frame isnt more popular. There are also the seatpost binder and other issues documented.

I think it's a bit telling that the Mondinice aero bike didnt seem to work out as well. Whatever they did developing this bike seemed to right thing vs. that one.

Without changing the profiles of the tubes too much in an effort to build on what they did right here, I would like to see a more hourglass + deeper HT resulting in a longer reach by 1-2cm and this thing could look the part of a Noah Fast 3.0 competitor—though it would still be lacking real aero credentials. That said, I would also love to see more BB drop, but that might be messing with the formula too much.

Quote from: Takiyaki on September 10, 2026, 02:46:42 PM
Sakizaki- when you mention the clearance in the OP, is that on either side or total?

I can fit that size hex key between the frame and the tire, checked at both the seat and chainstays.

Quote from: srf0638 on September 10, 2026, 11:26:48 AM
I am not quite sure, but I think this analysis glosses over the possibility of different effects at different parts of the ROM. Higher peak load at a more open knee angle may be more sustainable than lower peak load at a more closed knee angle.

Actually, I also don't know that the time component of ankle movement is actually reduced with a midfoot cleat position. Naively, I'd expect the ankle to cover a shorter arc over about the same amount of time.

I think this quickly gets into specific joint mobility issues that I am not really qualified to comment on, given my lack of medical training. Though it's hard to understand how or why these scenarios would play out to a significant degree as you mention, as, again, your ankles aren't static--unless there is something specific going on that restricts motion in a specific way.

I *think* most of the video analysis shows that moving the cleats back reduces the ankle's range of motion (in terms of angles). Proponents of the midfoot also often cite fixing heel drop and reducing pointing as a pro.

Some pro triathletes run midfoot positions. When you look at their position on a gravel bike or on a road ride--they largely don't use adapters or special shoes. Interesting anecdata there.

Quote from: Finiesta on September 10, 2026, 02:34:01 AM
Would´nt that forward cleat position increase knee stress and so knee pain? Because in that position the feet would be more backward compared to the knee than with a backward cleat position. Am I correct?

No. The same power at the same cadence means higher peak loads at the knee if you shorten the lever arm at the foot end of the linkage and reduce the time component over which your ankle moves. Changing cleat position did almost nothing for my knee range of motion.

Remember, we aren't talking about inducing instability or moving the cleats super far forward. They are likely back of the ball of the foot; just not so far back that most people with most shoes would find the range of shoe/cleat adjustment for SPD / SPD SL / Look pedals insufficient.

I think assuming the foot doesn't move relative to normal during the pedal stroke is how we got KOPS.

Quote from: JensenMacD on September 08, 2026, 08:29:27 AM
Edit: Correct me if I am wrong, but I guess my current position will now have 10mm less saddle-to-bar drop. 5mm from the longer stem and 5mm from dropping the seat post when I adjusted the cleats. So it would make sense that I can drop the front end 10mm while maintaining the same drop as before?!?

I would slow down on the changes and make them one at a time. I am not a fan of midfoot cleats and therefore not well-versed in the adjustments required as a result, but you are going all in on an Ironman-style bike fit.

Purely from a motion diagram perspective, a typical rider's kinetic chain extends up to their lumbar spine--maybe up to the thoracic spine when out of the saddle. Assuming perfectly rigid shoes, midfoot isolates/reduces stress on the lower parts of that chain, shifting work upward. That alone makes the quad do more work. It also removes from consideration a bunch of potential solutions to balancing your pedaling effort across more of your body.

Closing the hip angle and increasing the distance the upper leg travels during the stroke both tend to increase glute recruitment, but this doesn't really map to saddle lower vs. higher if you are already opening the hip angle via a forward position. Your ankles also affect the overall distance the upper leg can travel. By switching to midfoot, you also limit ankling's potential contribution to upper-leg movement.

IMO, most non-triathletes should be using their calves as much as they can if they want more glute recruitment (it's better for your knees too!), as it gives you more freedom to find a fit that works across more of your kinetic chain. If you have really developed calves, a good cleat position is probably close to the ball of the foot; if you don't, it's probably about ~10 mm behind. Experimentally, I would move them forward till you can feel it on long rides, and then move them back slowly until calf soreness isn't an issue.

Quote from: patliean1 on September 08, 2026, 02:23:06 PM
It appears looking at the geometry chart they are measuring the BB drop from the wheel axles to the top of the bottom bracket. Rather than the center.

This is the only reasoning I can think of why a frame in 2026 would have measly a 67mm BB drop. That or Rinasclta is using auto-cad engineers who've never ridden a bike before. Or have access to the internet.

I would clarify with them. Some italian bikes are still this high, and 67mm checks out given the head tube length measurements.

This bike does appear to really be 55mm of drop because its an adaptation of their track frame https://www.sp-cycle.com/Spcycle-TT932-Aero-Carbon-Time-Trial-Bike-Frame-UDH-Hanger-BSA-Bottom-Bracket-Full-Integrated-Cable-Time-Trial-Frameset-p6976330.html.

Quote from: patliean1 on September 07, 2026, 06:44:47 PM
I was looking at size 54. Which might as well be 56 or M/L

The chart doesn't provide wheelbase but given the chainstay, FC, and effective TT lengths, respectively, it should be on the longer side. It's actually more like a 58 with a low stack.

Its probably one of the better options available right now--but its not a great option.

I would look for lower BB drop and even more length at this size. The chainstay is also a bit on the longer side, and ideally the frame moves both wheels forward.