Quote from: Buffon_bj on October 16, 2026, 10:50:30 PMGeometry is the key for me as well, everything else doesn't really matter all that much.

(...) steep STA of 75-76 in even the larger sizes (..) and the possibility of an offset seatpost (I personally don't need as forward a position as many people like

Help me understand the point of so passionately fighting for a steep STA if on the other side of the same coin you're asking for an offset seatpost to again slacken the effective STA?

This is going to be my first post on this forum, and I reckon it's going to be a bit longer than I'd have thought, but here's my opinion.

It is obvious that the most common sizes in terms of geometry are the most widely used; however, which market are you aiming for? North America and Europe, or perhaps the Asian market? Here, the most common size varies, and perhaps the geometry settings do too. In short, traditional M–L sizes range from approximately 54 to 58 (52 to 56 for Asia).

The shape of the frame will be very important from a sales perspective, but from my point of view (as an engineer), my perception of design takes a different path; for example, when I see that the shape serves no purpose strictly related to stiffness, shock absorption or aerodynamics, for me that design is completely out of the question.

Having said that, I personally prefer a bike for enjoying long rides, so a racing-style geometry or a super-aerodynamic design won't add anything to my enjoyment of cycling. In my experience (in Spain and southern Europe), 98 per cent of cyclists are amateurs who don't compete, rarely goes near 40km/h on the plane (when lonely), or at most take part in endurance events. Everyone riding frames with racing geometry ends up using between 30 and 50 mm of stem extension.  The latest trends I've seen in the Aethos 2, Quick-Pro UR-One, Canyon Endurance CFR, Scott Addict, Emlee...  seem to me to be much closer to what the average cyclist actually needs.

If we compare the key features of these models, we can see that they have a reach similar to that of a racing bike, as well as a similar seat tube angle, but a higher stack and a relatively long overall wheelbase. Secondly, these bikes are designed more for lightness and confort than for being super-stiff and aerodynamic.

As for the wheel arch, there's no doubt that the current standard is 30mm, but I think a maximum of 35mm is the minimum you should bear in mind.

Finally, given the trend towards shorter cranks and the wider tyre profile, I think it's important to lower the bottom bracket; 74mm below the line of the wheel axles is a good starting point

Quote from: Jaaniusss on October 19, 2026, 12:54:05 AMHelp me understand the point of so passionately fighting for a steep STA if on the other side of the same coin you're asking for an offset seatpost to again slacken the effective STA?

I am an outlier among those who like progressive geometry I guess. I would be fine with a 74° STA (which, mind you, is much more forward than the 72.5-73 degrees one usually sees in size XL). But for many people, that is too slack. So instead of making 73 degrees the default and making it impossible to get more forward, why not make 76° the default and offer an offset seatpost for those of us who are fine with not-so-forward fits? Forward offset seatposts look bad, setback seatposts look good because it used to be the norm for so long in road bikes, so that's another plus.

But yeah a steep STA is not a passion for me, having a long geometry is. That is something that's almost totally unavailable in the market right now save for the Ridley and the Mondince gravel bike. I want to be able to use a normal 100-120 stem, or better, a good looking integrated stem-handlebar, instead of having to couple long reach handlebars with the few extra long stems available in the market.

I am afraid we might all be yelling into the void here, considering they've already done tooling and are in the prototyping phase

https://www.instagram.com/tagoola_matter/p/DeJTUkeyeDK/

So, another SL9 copy it will be 

Quote from: toxin on October 19, 2026, 08:17:55 AMI am afraid we might all be yelling into the void here, considering they've already done tooling and are in the prototyping phase

https://www.instagram.com/tagoola_matter/p/DeJTUkeyeDK/

I hope they can still consider the suggestions that we shared. I held my new project for now because I am still trying to find a decent Chinese frame with progressive geometry, and I believe that it will just be around the corner

Quote from: Ada on October 14, 2026, 01:11:58 AMAs many of you know, we've been making carbon wheels for quite a while. Thank you for the support. It's what let us keep going in an industry we love.

We ride every week, and over the years we've ridden a lot of frames. At some point we got curious: could we build one ourselves?

So we're making a road frame, and we'll share how it goes along the way. The first prototype is being prepared. When we have something real to show, we'll update this thread.

We'd love to hear from you.

• Which sizes would you want first?
• What matters most to you in a frame?
• What tire width do you usually run on the road?
• What would you most like to see in the next update: photos, weight, or test results?

Any updete on the frameset?

Quote from: jfcb on October 19, 2026, 08:45:16 AMSo, another SL9 copy it will be 

The one thing I didn't want to see...

Quote from: Bonus79 on October 21, 2026, 08:43:11 AMThe one thing I didn't want to see...

the mold on insta looks alot like it ...

Idc if it is an SL9 copy or not as long as it has progressive geometry... which is very to be unlikely, but we'll see.