What I struggle with is largely a PP/influencer thing: calling a bike a race bike because of how it looks, not how it actually fits riders.

The MENTECH AERO SPORT is an all-out race bike with an aggressively aero-optimised frame and modern, higher-stack geometry suited for new-age aero positions.

This is what PP is selling. The reach on these frames is really short. I think that for riders who can sustain it, a long-reach position with the bars set to allow a near 90-degree arm bend in the aero hoods position, with the back as flat as possible, is the fastest. If they can't, you raise the bars to relieve impingement, but the reach always seems long.

This bike is made for the opposite of what is considered to be a fast, modern aero position. It's not a race-bike geometry at all. I wouldn't be surprised if I, riding one of these, with the longest, narrowest barstem from PP (the 350mm wide, 140mm stem CRW bar), needed an extra 50-60w to hold 50km/h.

With regard to the head tube, I think a small recess can look nice if it aligns the bearing with the widest part of the TT but that's an aesthetic thing

Quote from: Sakizashi on November 05, 2026, 01:05:27 PMWhat I struggle with is largely a PP/influencer thing: calling a bike a race bike because of how it looks, not how it actually fits riders.

It's not a race-bike geometry at all

I agree with the idea of what this bike is versus what it's being marketed as are different. Day 1 my original thought was this is a slightly more aggressive LCR018.

Quote from: Sakizashi on November 05, 2026, 01:05:27 PMI think that for riders who can sustain it, a long-reach position with the bars set to allow a near 90-degree arm bend in the aero hoods position, with the back as flat as possible, is the fastest. If they can't, you raise the bars to relieve impingement, but the reach always seems long.

This bike is made for the opposite of what is considered to be a fast, modern aero position. It's not a race-bike geometry at all.

Can you expand on this?

I've been experimenting with my bike fit for the past 3+ months. Longer stems, higher stack, larger frames, moving the saddle forward.

The position which feels the fastest and most stable to me is a geometry that allows me to get super low with a 120 or 130mm stem while pushing my saddle far backwards. Even if it's not actually fast. My torso is so short but my arms/forearms are so long that a 90° arm bent position never feels comfortable. High stack included.

I realize I don't need a lot of reach per se. Rather, I need to be super low frontal area for my back to have any chance of being flat.

I largely agree with Sakizashi and Toxin, and I apologize if my firs post was a bit brash.

To me, the main problem is, like Sakizashi mentioned, the awful influencer branding that has taken over PP's newsletter. But also the fact that making the frames short and high just makes it much harder to get a nice fit for all riders. With the crop of riser bars, separate riser stems and spacers, and the fact that most integrated handlebars top out at 130mm but are well present in smaller sizes, makes it so much simpler to just make frames longer and lower and let the stem/handlebar/spacers elevate the front end if necessary. This would serve all riders and actually make it possible for more people to get a proper fit. Making the bike short and high makes it impossible to get the front end lower (since integrated bars do not come with proper negative stems) and after a point impossible to get the fit longer because integrated bars do not come in really long sizes.

The communication about a "smarter geometry" is super annoying to me. Sure, there's people whom the taller front end benefits, I'm not saying that, but it's not an universal property held by all riders. Making a bike that can actually accommodate lots of different fits would be a "smarter geometry".

Quote from: patliean1 on November 05, 2026, 11:21:36 AMWhat I would like to see from more brands:
-FSA/ACR headset system as standard. Opens the door to 3rd party cockpit options.
-Recessed headtube to better integrate the FSA headset dust cover.

My XLAB AD8 has a nice FSA recessed system. I wish more brands paid attention to this detail without needing proprietary cockpits or stems. One of the reasons why the Noah 3.0 caught me eye.

Alomst all frames using a IS52 top bearing are FSA ACR, DEDA DCR, Acros ICR or whatever ready, as the bearing seat has basically the same depth across the range. You just need the correct compression ring and you can put whatever cap you want on it.

Quote from: patliean1 on November 05, 2026, 02:21:44 PMCan you expand on this?

Sure. Saddle forward opens the hip angle. It shifts both the min and max of your range of movement. If you go forward you may want to move the saddle down to close the hip angle to ensure you are range of movement is in a comfortable range. With shorter cranks you can affect the range itself. Pair these changes with shorter cranks to get comfortable movement across the pedal stroke. The benefit is noticeable in the consistency of my pedal stroke when fatigued vs. fresh. The aero benefit comes from tuning this position further to attain as flat a back as possible.

The arms just sort of go where they go. In theory, 90 degrees is the most aero elbow bend. In practice, I am closer to 100 degrees because the change makes it more sustainable. The reach is long because otherwise I scrunch up my arms, which round my back, and the position becomes hard to hold with weak cyclist arms. In this sense my new fits are more stack and reach sensitive than my old ones were.

To me, this is the future frames need to build for. Riders chasing performance need more adjustability, not more integrated components. Less slammed bikes don't mean stacks are too high, just that getting the stack right is more important for competitive riders. It's not like we see the other extreme indicating stacks are too high (i.e., full stacks of spacers and riser bars). At the stack heights for this bike, a race bike built to help a rider max performance in 2027 should be 20mm to 40mm longer in reach than this bike, assuming target stem sizes of 110mm-150mm.

Yes, I am saying that the SL8 / SL9 geo is the baseline / conservative geometry for performance going forward and likely limiting to a bunch of riders.

We should be conscious that this diverges from the fashion road bike market, where aero endurance bikes with integrated cockpits sell. I think that's fine and great for the group ride, even the A group where you benefit from rotation. Just- don't tell me those are race bikes, because a serious rider chasing performance is going to find those bikes limiting, even for training, where riding in the position you race has some benefits to ensuring you can hold your race-day position.

Quote from: Sakizashi on November 06, 2026, 09:04:10 AMSure. Saddle forward opens the hip angle. It shifts both the min and max of your range of movement. If you go forward you may want to move the saddle down to close the hip angle to ensure you are range of movement is in a comfortable range. With shorter cranks you can affect the range itself. Pair these changes with shorter cranks to get comfortable movement across the pedal stroke. The benefit is noticeable in the consistency of my pedal stroke when fatigued vs. fresh. The aero benefit comes from tuning this position further to attain as flat a back as possible.

The arms just sort of go where they go. In theory, 90 degrees is the most aero elbow bend. In practice, I am closer to 100 degrees because the change makes it more sustainable. The reach is long because otherwise I scrunch up my arms, which round my back, and the position becomes hard to hold with weak cyclist arms. In this sense my new fits are more stack and reach sensitive than my old ones were.

To me, this is the future frames need to build for. Riders chasing performance need more adjustability, not more integrated components. Less slammed bikes don't mean stacks are too high, just that getting the stack right is more important for competitive riders. It's not like we see the other extreme indicating stacks are too high (i.e., full stacks of spacers and riser bars). At the stack heights for this bike, a race bike built to help a rider max performance in 2027 should be 20mm to 40mm longer in reach than this bike, assuming target stem sizes of 110mm-150mm.

Yes, I am saying that the SL8 / SL9 geo is the baseline / conservative geometry for performance going forward and likely limiting to a bunch of riders.

We should be conscious that this diverges from the fashion road bike market, where aero endurance bikes with integrated cockpits sell. I think that's fine and great for the group ride, even the A group where you benefit from rotation. Just- don't tell me those are race bikes, because a serious rider chasing performance is going to find those bikes limiting, even for training, where riding in the position you race has some benefits to ensuring you can hold your race-day position.

Unfortunately, only a fraction of riders, even on race bikes, use them for actual racing. Group rides, maybe fondos (in non-competitive manner). But not actual racing. Out of those who race, only another fraction is nerdy enough to care about the gear, optimization and their fit. That results in a very tiny market of people who are ready to get into geometry, biomechanics and years of iterative testing which may (or may not) result in a very fast bike setup.

In the end, the progressive fit will stay a very niche concept or a buzz word used in marketing to sell new stuff, because very rarely one can get it right from the first time. The latter will result in zero sum game even for the majority of the racers, because the optimization takes time and focused effort. For a bike brand that is not in a pro peloton, the way of creating a race looking bike is far more lucrative than creating a race bike.

Quote from: Da11as on November 06, 2026, 01:58:21 PMIn the end, the progressive fit will stay a very niche concept or a buzz word used in marketing to sell new stuff, because very rarely one can get it right from the first time. The latter will result in zero sum game even for the majority of the racers, because the optimization takes time and focused effort. For a bike brand that is not in a pro peloton, the way of creating a race looking bike is far more lucrative than creating a race bike.

I strongly disagree that it's a zero-sum game in the long run. The effort to do this is already going down with CDA estimation tools like Airo that are pretty good.

That said, I agree that it's a small market that cares or even benefits from a more aero bike. The larger market is about aesthetics and heritage.

The issue is the attempt to sell this bike on performance as a race bike. This Mentech is not a race bike. There is zero technical merit to an argument that it aligns with the current performance meta or that this geometry should be considered high performance. This bike also has no race heritage, so it's not a race bike that way either. It might be the bike you want, or the bike that best fits the group riding and fondos you do — and that's totally cool; just don't call it an "all-out race bike" or a short-reach, high-stack position "aero."

Quote from: Sakizashi on November 06, 2026, 02:37:32 PMI strongly disagree that it's a zero-sum game in the long run. The effort to do this is already going down with CDA estimation tools like Airo that are pretty good.

It is either the effort on the brand side (which costs money) or the rider side (which costs time). It took me almost three years to get my rider buddy on the wide tire wagon. It may take another three years to convince him he will be faster without slammed stem on the bike that is already quite small for him.

Quote from: Sakizashi on November 06, 2026, 02:37:32 PMThe issue is the attempt to sell this bike on performance as a race bike. This Mentech is not a race bike. There is zero technical merit to an argument that it aligns with the current performance meta or that this geometry should be considered high performance. This bike also has no race heritage, so it's not a race bike that way either. It might be the bike you want, or the bike that best fits the group riding and fondos you do — and that's totally cool; just don't call it an "all-out race bike" or a short-reach, high-stack position "aero."

Right. I consider such bikes an equivalent of a pony car. However, there is no such thing as pony bike (yet).

Progressive geometry adoption is already happening in the mainstream because pros are realising they want it. Ridley are all-in on it with their race bikes and Factor have already dipped their toes in.

Quote from: Da11as on November 06, 2026, 02:53:33 PMHowever, there is no such thing as pony bike (yet).

Well actually they've been around for longer than the vast majority of modern bike brands

I would say that it's coming mainstream because marketing has realized that's something new to sell and the rider have to justify why a brand pays them...

Quote from: toxin on November 06, 2026, 03:12:43 PMRidley are all-in on it with their race bikes and Factor have already dipped their toes in.

That is what I said. Marketing. One may buy progressive geometry, but the considerable input from the rider is necessary to actually make it fast. Most people won't bother, but it'll sell if the WT deem to be successful on it.

Quote from: Ludo on November 06, 2026, 04:04:17 PMI would say that it's coming mainstream because marketing has realized that's something new to sell and the rider have to justify why a brand pays them...

Maybe, but the staples of pro positions and bike setups for a long time now have been undersized frames with oversized stems and sitting way forward on the nose of the saddle. Pros have actually been self selecting progressive-adjacent positions for a long time, they just never had bikes made for it.

Quote from: Da11as on November 06, 2026, 04:06:29 PMThat is what I said. Marketing. One may buy progressive geometry, but the considerable input from the rider is necessary to actually make it fast. Most people won't bother, but it'll sell if the WT deem to be successful on it.

Is it actually more work? If you were new to the sport but a competitive, fire in your belly, is a progressive fit more work than a "traditional" position?

Or is this just bias due to having the baggage of an old system and not wanting to realize the sunk cost of the fit you already invested in?

Getting that last 10% of performance is always high investment, but for a lot of folks this isnt a 5w at 50kph change, its enough to show up on intervals.

Quote from: Sakizashi on November 06, 2026, 08:00:31 PMIs it actually more work? If you were new to the sport but a competitive, fire in your belly, is a progressive fit more work than a "traditional" position?

Or is this just bias due to having the baggage of an old system and not wanting to realize the sunk cost of the fit you already invested in?

Getting that last 10% of performance is always high investment, but for a lot of folks this isnt a 5w at 50kph change, its enough to show up on intervals.

We had a discussion/debate around getting the saddle more forward or should I say, progressive fit. But I realized that my saddle wasn't actually in a balanced fit but it was more on a forward fit and that's due to the nature of my SMP Saddle.

Almost all of the pros has been getting their saddle forward because it's a way to fire up/use your cycling muscle more than a traditional fit. That's why we see most of the cyclist in pro peloton is not dancing their way up on a mountain but they are just doing seated tempos compared before (see Schleck, Contador, Pantani etc.). Dancing the pedals is also not aero compared to seated tempos and it also doesn't make your body work more, thanks to the nature of forward saddle positions. In fact, my fitter also recommends that we progress from a balanced saddle setup to forward setup, though he recommended me to have a 130mm length stem so I would not be too cramped.

I also had a brief discussion with Chris Balser and he said that these Chinese frames had an atrocious geometry, this Mentech Aero sport is one example. Another one is X-Lab RS7 which is marketed as endurance bike yet it has 75 degree STA on size M lol