Carbonda fm936 Thoughts

[Medico]

Finally finished my build after some issues with the rearshock bushings.

Like m very much, but weight is a bit higher than expected with 12.5kg.
First impressions are good... size seems good, not to long for me (1.74cm) and nearly any peddle bob.

Pic:

[Jerry]

Hello,

First: happy new riding year!

Second: after building already many custom bikes, I think it would be nice to do my next building project around a frame that is unknown to me. My eye fell on the promising Carbonda FM936 frame, partly due to the 'radical' geometry.

But before I proceed to purchase, I would love to hear some specific feedback from the bikers who are already familiar with this frame:

1. Does anyone know if there is a partnership between the Carbonda FM936 and the NS Bikes Synonym, as well as the Stevens Jura 2020 (which emerged as the first OEM brand with this frame, but after which, strangely enough, nothing was heard anymore) or is the FM936 actually a 'counterfeit' or those OEM frames?

a.The Jura and FM936 look really 100% identical. The Synonym has the same front triangle, but a different (and in my eyes much nicer) design rear triangle, in particular the part around the rear axle.

2. I currently ride a bike around a Pro-Mance M7007 in size XL. This frame has already a fairly long reach of 488mm, which means I am already quite stretched out. I therefore doubt between a size L and XL for the Carbonda FM936 frame.

a. Size XL seems to long for me, but I have no experience with the real-live effect of a steep seat angle of more than 74 degrees.
b. Size L seems - in theory - to fit me better. On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned about the short seat tube of only 490mm and the installation of a dropper post. I have pretty long legs, namely. Can anyone advise on this?

3. Is the rocket linkage of the Carbonda made from carbon or aluminum (as with the NS Synonym)?

4. What is your critical opinion about the build and above all finish quality of the FM936? Many or few rough edges? Sturdy hardware? Hardware that fits neatly on the frame?

5. I only see black FM936 frames on the web. Has someone had his FM936 color painted via Carbonda, and if so, what is the quality of the paint job?

6. Can someone tell me the actual weight of the FM936 Normal in size L and XL?

Many thanks!

[carbonazza]

I can only answer to your question 5... and will build two FM936 for the coming season.

I got few gravel frames that were painted by Carbonda, and their paint job is great.
Even with some exotic requests, Wing there, was always helpful in refining the pattern.

The paint maybe a little brittle tough.
However, I made one of my frame custom painted here in Belgium, and the paint is of equal quality.
Note sure why but it looks big brands' original painting is a level higher in quality and resistance.

But as usual, it is the first scratch that hurts 

[Medico]

Hello,

First: happy new riding year!

Second: after building already many custom bikes, I think it would be nice to do my next building project around a frame that is unknown to me. My eye fell on the promising Carbonda FM936 frame, partly due to the 'radical' geometry.

But before I proceed to purchase, I would love to hear some specific feedback from the bikers who are already familiar with this frame:

1. Does anyone know if there is a partnership between the Carbonda FM936 and the NS Bikes Synonym, as well as the Stevens Jura 2020 (which emerged as the first OEM brand with this frame, but after which, strangely enough, nothing was heard anymore) or is the FM936 actually a 'counterfeit' or those OEM frames?

a.The Jura and FM936 look really 100% identical. The Synonym has the same front triangle, but a different (and in my eyes much nicer) design rear triangle, in particular the part around the rear axle.

2. I currently ride a bike around a Pro-Mance M7007 in size XL. This frame has already a fairly long reach of 488mm, which means I am already quite stretched out. I therefore doubt between a size L and XL for the Carbonda FM936 frame.

a. Size XL seems to long for me, but I have no experience with the real-live effect of a steep seat angle of more than 74 degrees.
b. Size L seems - in theory - to fit me better. On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned about the short seat tube of only 490mm and the installation of a dropper post. I have pretty long legs, namely. Can anyone advise on this?

3. Is the rocket linkage of the Carbonda made from carbon or aluminum (as with the NS Synonym)?

4. What is your critical opinion about the build and above all finish quality of the FM936? Many or few rough edges? Sturdy hardware? Hardware that fits neatly on the frame?

5. I only see black FM936 frames on the web. Has someone had his FM936 color painted via Carbonda, and if so, what is the quality of the paint job?

6. Can someone tell me the actual weight of the FM936 Normal in size L and XL?

Many thanks!

Can give you a couple of answers.

2. I come from a canyon nerve with a reach of 422 size M and now a medium with reach 466 (120mm fork). Because of the steap HTA and a much shorter stem the effective tt (with stem) is almost as long and does feel natural. I had the same conserns, but I'm glad I did. So much more controll and moving space.

3. Carbon

4. Despite having some paint cracks because of shipment the quality js excellent... No sharp parts, even the inside feels smooth. Hardware fits nice, but I dont think it's the best qualitiy of bearings and the aluminium which is used for the torx part could also be tougher. On the other hand, bearings from other brands are most of the time also a bit flimsy.. they al need some extra grease.

Good luck with your choise... But I would pick the size you normal should have picked. I'm untill now very pleased by how it rides... Never go back to old school geo!

[carbonazza]

... Never go back to old school geo!...

Really ? Is the difference that big ?
I look forward to try this !

[Medico]

... Never go back to old school geo!...

Really ? Is the difference that big ?
I look forward to try this !

I won't... For me the difference is there. I think it's a combination of lower BB, shorter chainstay and the slack HTA and steep STA. It makes this bike more lifely and a better steerer than my canyon is. Even on the flat I like it more than my old, for me it's a better fit. Can keep speeds easier. Didn't expected this. I like it.

[Jerry]

Thank you for the feedback. All very helpful.

@Medico: the PM M7007 frame is already quite on par with the 'longer, lower, slacker' trend. I ride it in size XL with a 120mm fork and 50mm stem, and in that configuration the M7007 then has an HTA of 68 degrees and a reach of approximately 480mm. That is slacker and (much) longer than most XC bikes of today.

The Carbonda FM936 / NS Synonymous with 120mm fork has a reach or 491mm in size L and 511mm in size XL. As mentioned, I am sitting already quite stretched but nicely balanced on my XL M7007. So based on that, a size L of the Carbonza FM936 would be the better choice for me over the - another 20mm longer - size XL.
However, the seat tube of the XL M7007 has a (sufficient) length of 520 mm, but that of the FM936 in size L is only 490 mm.

In short, I am faced with a dilemma: do I go for a size L because of the familiar M7007 frame length, but perhaps too short a seat tube (for a dropper post and sufficient saddle high). Or will I go for a even more stretched out body position on an FM936 in size XL, but with a slightly longer seat tube (and even longer wheelbase, which probably has a negative effect on tight, curvy single tracks in the Benelux where I usually drive)?

Greetings!

[Denis]

Jerry, whats your height ?

[Jerry]

Jerry, whats your height ?

198 cm tall. However, due to an injury sensitive back and neck, I like sitting a little more upright and not to stretched out (whereby my arms and wrists endure a lot of body pressure at riding).

[Denis]

Jerry, whats your height ?

198 cm tall. However, due to an injury sensitive back and neck, I like sitting a little more upright and not to stretched out (whereby my arms and wrists endure a lot of body pressure at riding).

With such tall height I would not even think about L size. Only XL, some short stem and hi rise handlebar if you want more upright.

[Jerry]

Jerry, whats your height ?

198 cm tall. However, due to an injury sensitive back and neck, I like sitting a little more upright and not to stretched out (whereby my arms and wrists endure a lot of body pressure at riding).

With such tall height I would not even think about L size. Only XL, some short stem and hi rise handlebar if you want more upright.

I appreciate and feel your instand choice for a size XL at a body height longer than 195 cm. I also like to take a somewhat different vision at it (based on the M7007 that I have already trusted).

Not too long ago, a reach of + 500 mm was unthinkable for an XC / light trail bike. And if they already existed, they were marked as a size XXL or even XXXL. Don't get me wrong, I am very enthusiastic about the 'longer, lower, slacker'-approach of modern frame manufacturers. Therefor my choice for the M7007 at the time.
However, in view of the rapid development in this geometry area, I wonder at the same time: is there such a thing as a frame that is too long for its rider? Perhaps in particular in the XC / light trail discipline.

Purely by feeling, I tend to choose a size L. But as I said before, I doubt about the rather short seat tube or only 490 mm.

Anyways, perhaps it is wise to also contact NS Bikes with the question of which frame size they recommend for someone taller than 195 cm.

[carbonazza]

... Anyways, perhaps it is wise to also contact NS Bikes with the question of which frame size they recommend for someone taller than 195 cm...

I'm always in the middle of two sizes too, but between M & L

Draw the geometry of the bike( I use sketchup for that ).
Get the geo, or measure your existing bike, the one you know you can do long ride with no, or almost no pain and draw it too, to compare.
Play with the stem length, stem spacers/bar height, saddle offset, compare reach/stack.
Usually one size will look better doing so.

When asking Canyon for sizing about a road bike, they were telling me M.
But with my yearly mileage and short torso, an S could do it...
The person who will answer you at NS Bikes, may give you some experienced hints, so definitely good to try.
But will probably guess something instead, that may be right or not for you.

I didn't start yet, but I'm afraid it won't be easy for me to choose between an M or L here either due to the geo difference.

[sissypants]

Thanks to all of you on this thread for posting up about this frame. Great info!

I like everything about it except the rear part of the rear triangle.

I really like the rear triangle that NS Bikes has tooled through Carbonda and will see what Carbonda says about licensing issues, tooling costs, etc.

I hope this is a good alternative to the Light Carbon 937, the only other really long and slack XC/Trail-style FS bike on the factory-direct market. My LCFS937 was so fun but had some issues with the linkage.

Stevens still hasn't come out with their bike. Do you think they killed the project after NS went live with the Synonym?

Have any of you had any issues with your linkage or shock mounts?  Any wiggles, squeaks, creaks, or unwanted flex?

[Medico]

Thanks to all of you on this thread for posting up about this frame. Great info!

I like everything about it except the rear part of the rear triangle.

I really like the rear triangle that NS Bikes has tooled through Carbonda and will see what Carbonda says about licensing issues, tooling costs, etc.

I hope this is a good alternative to the Light Carbon 937, the only other really long and slack XC/Trail-style FS bike on the factory-direct market. My LCFS937 was so fun but had some issues with the linkage.

Stevens still hasn't come out with their bike. Do you think they killed the project after NS went live with the Synonym?

Have any of you had any issues with your linkage or shock mounts?  Any wiggles, squeaks, creaks, or unwanted flex?

After a 200km of rides no sqeeks or other issues. Compared to my other bike the rear is much stiffer which isn't a suprise without an extra linkage/bearing there. This is even without a real boost wheel in it, i'm using spacers!
The shock mount was quite tight, which I've been told,should be like that.
Overall I'm happy with it.

[numberzero]

I really like the rear triangle that NS Bikes has tooled through Carbonda and will see what Carbonda says about licensing issues, tooling costs, etc.

Stevens still hasn't come out with their bike. Do you think they killed the project after NS went live with the Synonym?

About ns bikes i found this when trying to find reviews of their bike : https://mtb-xc.pl/2019/07/04/rower-gorski-z-przyszlosci-ns-bikes-synonym-2020/
This is what a guy probably in touch with NS said :
"Szymon Kobyliński (7Anna):

The bike was indeed designed and developed 100% by NS Bikes, but we allowed several companies to use our front triangle to reduce costs (carbon forms are extremely expensive, and here we have as many as 4 sizes). So in the future there will be several bikes with similar geometry. But the rear, suspension, rocker etc. are unique to NS Bikes."

Probably stevens has not made enough testing to lauch their now.