{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreig6xflu3iranalsspmxmorjl3kx6wgvuclfpvcgjyrbbvnxvbbwbi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:jcu7nrruxovhg3q5vlsnw3wt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mg42ymu332i2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreibyhew26lmqh7fpjtw3s37otixgv7ememdjd4hcetnbuuezyz2hhe"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 287590
  },
  "description": "A new TT bike is just the start - Tudor's \"build it, and they will come\" philosophy could transform pro cycling. ",
  "path": "/bmc-timemachine-mpc-part-3-beyond-the-frame-lies-a-glimpse-of-the-future-of-performance/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-02T20:14:29.000Z",
  "site": "https://escapecollective.com",
  "tags": [
    "Exclusive: Inside BMC and Tudor’s innovative time trial projectThe bike brand and its team partner invited us to document the development of a time trial bike still so new even some of Tudor’s pro riders haven’t seen it yet.Escape CollectiveRonan Mc Laughlin",
    "Exclusive: Part 2 inside BMC and Tudor’s new TT bike projectConcept validation is quickly followed by disaster when the UCI changes its frame design rules.Escape CollectiveRonan Mc Laughlin",
    "Subscribe now"
  ],
  "textContent": "BMC, Ronan Mc Laughlin\n\nAfter more than a year of development, countless CFD simulations, wind-tunnel tests, velodrome and outdoor testing, and a UCI rule change that threatened to scupper the entire project, BMC has officially unveiled its new Timemachine MPC TT bike.\n\nThe bike has already seen racing action this year, but as Stefan Küng rolled down the start ramp at the Volta ao Algarve for the bike's first test in top-level competition, it marked the conclusion of a development project that _Escape Collective_ has been deeply embedded within almost since its inception. (Küng finished 7th in the Algarve TT but alas, broke his left femur in a crash at the Omloop Nieuwsblad and will be out of the action for some time.)\n\nExclusive: Inside BMC and Tudor’s innovative time trial projectThe bike brand and its team partner invited us to document the development of a time trial bike still so new even some of Tudor’s pro riders haven’t seen it yet.Escape CollectiveRonan Mc LaughlinExclusive: Part 2 inside BMC and Tudor’s new TT bike projectConcept validation is quickly followed by disaster when the UCI changes its frame design rules.Escape CollectiveRonan Mc Laughlin\n\nThis is the third and final instalment in our series following the project from the inside. In parts one and two, we covered the “why” and the early “how,\" from targets and interaction effects to wind tunnel validation, a costly rule change, and the first on-road prototype rides. Here, we pick up where part two ended, when the prototype I rode in Grenchen went straight into structural and impact testing. From there, we follow the next iteration, my ride on one of the first production frames at Tudor’s January camp, and the final details of the bike BMC recently unveiled to the public.\n\n## **Structural testing**\n\nThe focus until that point had been on performance – how fast or how aero the new frame is, and how it rides. But performance is nothing if the thing falls apart under the rider. That’s where the destructive testing any manufacturer must do on their bikes comes in.\n\nThere are, of course, ISO standards and requirements to meet, but as I’ve heard time and time again over the years, simply meeting those standards isn’t enough to ensure a bike is suitable for WorldTour racing. In other words, ISO is a minimum safety standard, not a guarantee of performance. Any manufacturer worth its salt will go above and beyond the ISO standards, and BMC is no different.\n\nWhile I couldn’t attend the testing in person, Stefan “Stifu” Christ talked me through everything that happens. BMC uses what he calls “ISO plus” where the ISO requirements are the baseline from which BMC increases the test severity until it finds a breaking point. The testing included several iterative loops, focusing on three primary areas: the fork, the frame, and the cockpit.\n\n### **Fork testing**\n\nFor a fork to pass the ISO requirement, it must survive a 22.5 kg-weight dropped from a height of 212 mm, while mounted in the frame. The frame and fork are mounted vertically in a test rig and the weight is dropped from above directly onto the fork at the dropouts. This could be representative of hitting a pothole at high speed.\n\nBMC’s own testing includes subsequent drops from 312 mm and all the way up to 640 mm. Asked what these higher drops represent, Christ first jokingly said “nothing,” before clarifying the 640 mm drop could be representative of a much larger accident, e.g. hitting a fixed object. But, as he explained, in all likelihood an impact of this severity would throw the rider from the bike anyway; damage to the bike would be associated with the crash, but almost definitely not the cause of it.\n\nBMC isn’t necessarily looking for a fork that can sustain all these impacts without damage, but rather a failure that is predictable. It’s reasonable to expect that a fork will suffer structural failure in such a high-impact collision, but how it fails is critical. “A fork that disintegrates into pieces is more dangerous,” Christ explained. BMC wants a structure that survives a crash relatively intact, but also in such a way that a rider doesn’t unknowingly continue on a damaged part that could later fail. For this reason, BMC tests the same fork multiple times with the weight dropped from 640 mm to ensure it remains in one piece even when damaged.\n\nThe new Timemachine MPC forks underwent nine prototype loops before passing both the required structural test and stiffness targets BMC had set.\n\nBMC took a lightweight approach with the first fork prototype (460 grams), but as expected, it lacked the strength and stiffness required. This lightweight prototype developed minor cracks at 212 mm and failed structurally at 312 mm.\n\nBy the time they’d got to prototype number nine, the forks were beefed up quite considerably with an additional 160 grams of material that improved lateral stiffness by 87% to 51 N/mm of deflection and transformed the test results once on the impact rig. The final fork survived five consecutive impacts at 640 mm. Though it did deform by 34 mm and was clearly damaged, it remained in one piece, whereas typical lightweight forks often separate after a second hit, Christ explained.\n\n### **Frame testing**\n\nThe frame is a little different. Unlike the fork, the frame’s primary challenge is stiffness rather than strength. In fact, the very first prototype frame already passed the ISO-required 212 mm drop test. Christ explained this “was not a big surprise, because just by the frame design, it’s clear that stiffness is the challenge and not the strength.”\n\nAsked how a frame may fail, he said, “We rarely see issues (these days) in those tests,” before adding that “occasionally you might see something like cracking around the down tube. On extremely light frames, that is one of the areas you would expect to fail, simply because the compression loads through the down tube are quite high. With very thin alloy tubes, for example, you can even see buckling failure there.”\n\nSo strength wasn’t an issue, but, as we’d seen back in the Grenchen field test, stiffness was. Again, this wasn’t a surprise for Christ. His reaction to my ride feedback was essentially that the prototype behaved exactly as his testing suggested. BMC had already run the frame through its internal stiffness rigs before I’d ridden it on the road, so he had a fairly clear picture of where it sat relative to the targets BMC now sets based on years of experience. While he hadn’t mentioned it to me, he had already identified that the front assembly stiffness would need refinement.\n\nStiffness is always the challenge with TT bikes and aero-profiled tubing. Those aerodynamic profiles that made the bike what it is also made it inherently less stiff than, say, a round traditional tube. Tube shapes are always a compromise between aero drag, stiffness, strength, and weight, but in TT frames, that balance is heavily weighted toward reducing aero drag.\n\nTT bikes are effectively asking long, thin tubes to resist bending and torsional loads. Imagine a ruler versus a round tube – the ruler will flex much more easily. Christ noted that the head tube area was particularly challenging due to its reduced height and short distance between bearings. The solution was relatively blunt: beef it up! Thus, the head tube area now has a 3 mm wall thickness all around.\n\nIn fact, somewhat counterintuitively, the smaller size of the two bikes had the greater stiffness challenges, primarily due to that uniquely small head tube and bayonet steerer design. In most conventional road frames, smaller sizes are inherently stiffer because tube lengths are shorter and the load paths are more compact.\n\nAll told, and somewhat impressively, it took just three prototype iterations to land on a stiffness profile Christ was happy with. This did require additional material, as well as changes to the layup and laminate, which resulted in the final version weighing 170 grams more than the early prototype.\n\nIf the fork proved testing to design, but the frame relatively less so, the base bar ensured this part of the development cycle was a somewhat challenging sandwich for the BMC engineers. In fact, Christ described the base bar as the most challenging structural element to develop.\n\nThe ISO validation for a base bar involves two stages: one testing static strength and the other fatigue resistance. Stage 1 assesses static load and deflection behaviour using a 280 Newton push-and-pull force, during which bar deflection is measured. Stage 2 tests durability under repeated stress, applying a cyclic load of 400 N per side for a total of 100,000 cycles to confirm long-term structural integrity.\n\nThese ISO tests evaluate safety and structural robustness rather than ride feel or stiffness, but, as mentioned in part 2 of this series, the base bar on the original prototype I rode in Grenchen was certainly underwhelming in these areas and curbed my confidence in the entire bike. In testing, that early prototype showed 16 mm of deflection on stage 1 of the ISO test. In other words, it passed the ISO test, but was too flexible.\n\nStage 2 of the testing went a little better, passing the ISO test, but again, it didn’t meet BMC’s own stiffness targets. Several iterations later, BMC has since reduced the deformation to 9 mm. As for what that means out on the road, I’ll get to that in a bit when we dig into my ride impressions on the first production model bike.\n\nThe extension’s mounting area gets its own dedicated 300 N load test, but BMC increases it to 560 N, almost double the ISO requirement. The team had used fairly basic bolts for this prototype phase. These had worked their way loose during the test. But after replacing those with the bolts that would be used in the final version anyway, the bar subsequently passed the test.\n\n## **Geometry: Low and long and low and longer**\n\nWith testing complete, I wouldn’t hear from BMC again until early January when it was time to go see the first production frame. I’d be headed to Tudor Pro Cycling’s January training camp base in Moraira, Spain and I’d be testing one of Tudor’s new Timemachines. They only had two at the time.\n\n### This post is for subscribers only\n\nBecome a member to get access to all content\n\nSubscribe now",
  "title": "BMC Timemachine MPC Part 3: Beyond the frame lies a glimpse of the future of performance",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-04T15:09:47.534Z"
}