Hi, how were yo ble to pay that price? im also interested 

I have a code for the main website tagoola.cn
CHINABIKES-fans
1 time use only
Not sure how prices will work out compared to Aliexpress but I think some of the ranges are different but may help someone if they are looking on the site

Is there a direct mount Shimano RD for this QP ER or UR or AR frames or

Yes I was told they are supplied.
I personally did not get one with my ER One.
I bought a Sixweel UDH Direct mount hanger for Shimano

How about RF9, where is it sourced from?

Daniel Zhang
+86 180 2696 3351
What’s app him and ask

I asked Alisa from LongTeng if they produce this frame, they said no. Reason I asked her because I am inquiring about their RD302 which is Mondince's FM126.

Well I’ve just gone back to Daniel ant  and specifically checked this with him because of your post.
He’s adamant that the RF01 is manufactured by Longteng and says the factory designation is LTK266-D, with the FK266 fork.

I’ve been speaking to Daniel at Light Cycling this morning and managed to clarify a bit more about where the various frames they sell are actually coming from.

Daniel has a direct relationship with Longteng and has confirmed that several of Light Cycling’s existing open-mould frames are manufactured by them. Specifically, he says the RF01, RF02, RF04 and GF09 are Longteng frames.

He’s also shown me a recent delivery note from Huizhou Longteng Sports Equipment Co., Ltd. showing frames, handlebars and components being supplied to him, so there clearly is a genuine commercial relationship between Light Cycling and Longteng.

However, I specifically asked him about the new RF10, and he has confirmed that the RF10 is NOT manufactured by Longteng.

The RF10 comes from another factory. This is particularly interesting because, as I understand it, the same underlying frame is also being sold by TanTan as the X68, which is why I was interested in finding out who the actual manufacturer behind the mould is rather than simply which companies are selling it.

I asked Daniel directly who the factory is. He has said that, because the RF10 is currently a new product and he has invested quite a lot into bringing it to market, he would prefer not to disclose the factory at this stage to avoid creating any unnecessary issues.

That’s fair enough, and obviously I’m going to respect that rather than start guessing.

It does highlight something that comes up repeatedly with Chinese open-mould frames, though. We often know the companies selling a particular frame, but that doesn’t necessarily tell us who is actually manufacturing it. The same mould can appear through several different sellers, and tracing it back to the actual factory can be surprisingly difficult.

To Daniel’s credit, he’s been quite open with me about Light Cycling’s business model. He doesn’t claim that all the frames on the Light Cycling website are their own proprietary designs or that Light Cycling manufactures them. A number are existing open-mould frames sourced from established factories, including the Longteng models above.

So at least we now know one thing definitively from Daniel: RF01, RF02, RF04 and GF09 are sourced from Longteng; RF10 is not.

As for exactly which factory is behind the RF10/X68, Daniel wants to keep that commercially confidential for the moment, so I’ll respect that.

New Lightcarbon LCR20D
Not much about but will be ready in a couple of months to purchase with a riser bar so less aggressive should be a good option.
However it’s not crazy light frame is being touted as 1000g and 35c tyres so like many bike maybe scope to go wider so 34-36mm width as measured tyres may work.

https://www.lightcarbon.com/category/downloads/1

There is also the new Tan Tan X68 will be cheaper. Not looking as light as the old X68 but they are  being conservative with tyre width 32c but there information also shows 35c but TBC or new less well know player LightCycling RF10 frame same in rear as Tan Tan X68 slightly different front end 35c and 54cm frame 850g and fork is 380g.

Or if you want wider tyres  maybe the nee Lightcarbon LCG072D again I looked at this looks excellent could be a good all road option

Lightcycling propose the same frame ( RF10 ) ?

No the frames look similar on rear but front end not same.
Also made in the same factory

Thank you Sander, very detailed reply...especially useful since you have tested so many wheels.

After thinking about tire width, I would not run anything narrower than 32mm WAM today and in the future. There is simply no real reason to go back, because going from a 32mm (nominal width) Michelin Pro 5 TLR (the tire I use now) to a 30mm only saves about 25g, and going down to 28mm (nominal) only saves another 25g (meaning 100g for the wheelset if switching both tires from 32 nominal to 28 nominal). Nominal 28mm (on something like 21-23mm IW) is what I would run if I was looking for a superlight wheelset, but with 24-25mm IW I suppose that the minimum is a nominal 30mm, at that point no reason not to go for a nominal 32mm since it rolls better on bad surface, it is more comfortable, there is no aero penalty, it has more grip...the only real downside is a 50g penalty (absolutely negligible).

What I cannot understand from all the technical data available online is how smooth the transition between the tire and the rim is for each of these wheels, as far as I know this is the new topic in this tire/rim optimization problem.

The thing is, no wheel manufacturer can realistically guarantee or advertise a perfect tyre-to-rim transition, because tyres from different manufacturers—and even different models with the same nominal size—will measure differently on the same rim.

If you want approximately 32mm WAM on a 25mm internal rim, you’ll generally be looking at a nominal 30mm tyre. On my latest moulded-hole wheelset, I’m running Continental GP5000 clinchers: the nominal 30mm front measures approximately 31.96mm, while the nominal 32mm rear measures approximately 33mm.

The 30mm front gives the cleanest transition. The rear tyre is perhaps 0.6mm wider than the rim, but in my opinion the transition matters less at the rear than at the front, and the larger rear tyre provides additional comfort.

However, that is specific to those rims and tyres. Ultimately, the transition is largely determined by the buyer’s tyre choice. With a 25mm internal and approximately 32mm external rim, a nominal 30mm tyre will usually be the logical starting point. You can still run a nominal 32mm tyre at the rear if you want more volume and comfort.

Likewise, on my rims that are 25mm internal and 34mm external, I can use nominal 32mm tyres that measure approximately 34mm, producing a good match. There isn’t one universal answer based only on the rim dimensions—you need to consider the actual measured width and shape of the chosen tyre once mounted.

,