Carbonda fm936 Thoughts

[QuentinLL]

Hi guys,

I found thist threat yeasterday and I I read the whole thing because I want to order this same frame, thanks for all that cool information .
My only thought is ,wich frame size would fit me better.? Comparing the geometry with my actual Scalpel Si in L, the carbonda frame is pretty big so I'm considering downsizing to M. What you guys think?
I am 1,83m tall and I usually have my saddle height at 77,5 cm (BB to top of the Saddle).
Anyone riding a M with more or less the same saddle height?

Thanks again and keep posting those cool bike pics!

Hi,

The reach is longer but the seat tube is steeper.
What you need to look at is the distance between saddle and handlebar (horizontaly and verticaly) to have a nice riding position.
I am 1,78m with 75cm BB to top of the saddle. With a L size and a 40mm stem (what i like to ride), I have the same horizontaly and verticaly position as my Orbea Alma size L with 60mm stem.

The main difference is that on steep uphill, with the Orbea Alma, I was seated "on the rear wheel". What means poor handling and struggling to keep the front wheel on the ground.
Conclusion : I suggest you take the Carbonda L size.

[theirishrider]

Hi guys,

I found thist threat yeasterday and I I read the whole thing because I want to order this same frame, thanks for all that cool information .
My only thought is ,wich frame size would fit me better.? Comparing the geometry with my actual Scalpel Si in L, the carbonda frame is pretty big so I'm considering downsizing to M. What you guys think?
I am 1,83m tall and I usually have my saddle height at 77,5 cm (BB to top of the Saddle).
Anyone riding a M with more or less the same saddle height?

Thanks again and keep posting those cool bike pics!

I'm 185cm and I ride the L, with 60mm stem and flat bar. I would not want to ride a M that is for sure. L feels very perfect.

[Denis]

Hi guys,

I found thist threat yeasterday and I I read the whole thing because I want to order this same frame, thanks for all that cool information .
My only thought is ,wich frame size would fit me better.? Comparing the geometry with my actual Scalpel Si in L, the carbonda frame is pretty big so I'm considering downsizing to M. What you guys think?
I am 1,83m tall and I usually have my saddle height at 77,5 cm (BB to top of the Saddle).
Anyone riding a M with more or less the same saddle height?

Thanks again and keep posting those cool bike pics!

Definitely L for your height.
I choose L with short stem for 180cm, feels very balanced for ups and downs.

[Roby13]

Hi,

The reach is longer but the seat tube is steeper.
What you need to look at is the distance between saddle and handlebar (horizontaly and verticaly) to have a nice riding position.
I am 1,78m with 75cm BB to top of the saddle. With a L size and a 40mm stem (what i like to ride), I have the same horizontaly and verticaly position as my Orbea Alma size L with 60mm stem.

The main difference is that on steep uphill, with the Orbea Alma, I was seated "on the rear wheel". What means poor handling and struggling to keep the front wheel on the ground.
Conclusion : I suggest you take the Carbonda L size.

Hi Quentin and thanks for your answer.

I want to keep my actual position on the new frame which I find perfect,  it would not be a problem even if the seat tube is 4 cm shorter, I just need to set my saddle 10 mm backwards.
The thing is, that this frame in M has a 30 mm longer reach than my Scalpel in L which is perfect if I want to build it with a shorter Stem
but in L it is 55mm longer .
Also the wheelbase in M is 50 mm longer than the Scalpel in L, the L would be a huge 100 mm difference.
The kind of riding I mostly do is agressive XC an marathon races so a reactive bike would be more of my taste.

[theirishrider]

I want to keep my actual position on the new frame which I find perfect,  it would not be a problem even if the seat tube is 4 cm shorter, I just need to set my saddle 10 mm backwards.
The thing is, that this frame in M has a 30 mm longer reach than my Scalpel in L which is perfect if I want to build it with a shorter Stem
but in L it is 55mm longer .
Also the wheelbase in M is 50 mm longer than the Scalpel in L, the L would be a huge 100 mm difference.
The kind of riding I mostly do is agressive XC an marathon races so a reactive bike would be more of my taste.

Is that the new scalpel? forgive me, but I think the point of the FM936 is to have the longer wheel base? I don't think you'll have any reactive issues on this, the benefit of the slack head angle and longer wheel base is not to be understated on the 'agressive' terrain.

[bbr]

I am interested to know as well. Does it depend on frame sizes as well?  The yellow custom painted frame some post back, looks like it could fit a piggy back shock.

Are you sure that the carbonda frame have less space than this one ?

[QuentinLL]

I want to keep my actual position on the new frame which I find perfect,  it would not be a problem even if the seat tube is 4 cm shorter, I just need to set my saddle 10 mm backwards.
The thing is, that this frame in M has a 30 mm longer reach than my Scalpel in L which is perfect if I want to build it with a shorter Stem
but in L it is 55mm longer .

As i mentioned, don't look at the reach alone. Consider distance saddle / handlebar !
Going from 73,5° STA to 76° STA (for example) make the saddle 31mm closer to the bars => you need a reach 31mm longer to have the same pedaling position (horizontal distance saddle / bars)
If you take a 55mm reach longer, then you can reduce 25mm from the stem length (better downhill and handling)

For example, as i said on my Orbea Alma, I have 63mm reach difference, compensated buy 31mm with STA and 20-30mm stem length.
Look at the picture => same position saddle / handlebar.

[QuentinLL]

When i center the pictures on the rear bike axle, you can see that the geometry, wheelbase, angles, BB height etc. are very very different.
But saddle->handlebar length is the same => same "pedaling" position



The FM936 is a modern geometry, it should be riding hard, with short stem. Take a size L and downsize your stem 

[adroitrider]

Bike still works at 210 miles.

One thing I’ve noticed is that my shock has never got close to the 42.5mm stroke. I probably have too much air in it and I only do 2-3’ drops but I also think the flex stays are causing some progressive damping as the stroke gets toward max.

I may play around with the air pressure and see how close I can get to max compression.

[adroitrider]

I am interested to know as well. Does it depend on frame sizes as well?  The yellow custom painted frame some post back, looks like it could fit a piggy back shock.

Here is a measurement and pic of the XL.

The cables take up some room. The 3ft mark is right on the shock body center.

[Roby13]

When i center the pictures on the rear bike axle, you can see that the geometry, wheelbase, angles, BB height etc. are very very different.
But saddle->handlebar length is the same => same "pedaling" position



The FM936 is a modern geometry, it should be riding hard, with short stem. Take a size L and downsize your stem 

Hi Quentin, thanks for all those graphics and don't want to deviate the thread, but even when the saddle/handlebar distance is the same, the pedaling position it is not. In this example you are much more over the BB which I don't want to change from my actual bike as I train on three different bikes and have it dialed in terms of power and comfort, this is why I think it would be easier for me to get that position on a M frame. I would like to keep the same saddle to BB height/offset and distance to the handlebar. Maybe it would not be possible on a L as the reach is much longer.

[adroitrider]

Hi Quentin, thanks for all those graphics and don't want to deviate the thread, but even when the saddle/handlebar distance is the same, the pedaling position it is not. In this example you are much more over the BB which I don't want to change from my actual bike as I train on three different bikes and have it dialed in terms of power and comfort, this is why I think it would be easier for me to get that position on a M frame. I would like to keep the same saddle to BB height/offset and distance to the handlebar. Maybe it would not be possible on a L as the reach is much longer.

My advice would be to forgo the reach and stack to match your current bikes and just set the seat based on the larger size. Others have fallen into the trap you are leaning toward and it hasn’t worked out. You want to be in this bike: long, low, and slack. Matching the reach and stack isn’t critical important on a MTB. You move and constantly adjust your body based on several factors. You want to be low in this bike, not high on it.

[wfl3]

My advice would be to forgo the reach and stack to match your current bikes and just set the seat based on the larger size. Others have fallen into the trap you are leaning toward and it hasn’t worked out. You want to be in this bike: long, low, and slack. Matching the reach and stack isn’t critical important on a MTB. You move and constantly adjust your body based on several factors. You want to be low in this bike, not high on it.

and I'm guessing his saddle pushed back far behind the BB is the result of the older, shorter geometry - very bad.


Behind the BB over the rear wheel is inefficient for pedaling and traction - look at the saddle position of the most efficient pedalers in cycling (hint they do TT).



 

[acedeuce802]

Hi Quentin, thanks for all those graphics and don't want to deviate the thread, but even when the saddle/handlebar distance is the same, the pedaling position it is not. In this example you are much more over the BB which I don't want to change from my actual bike as I train on three different bikes and have it dialed in terms of power and comfort, this is why I think it would be easier for me to get that position on a M frame. I would like to keep the same saddle to BB height/offset and distance to the handlebar. Maybe it would not be possible on a L as the reach is much longer.

Just curious, what are your other 2 bikes?  Here's some potential perspective.  Take the example that you get a bike fit on a road bike, the fit is done on a stationary trainer.  There will be an ideal saddle height, set back, and tilt to maximize power and minimize discomfort.  This is important because you are always seated in the same position and grades are not as steep as MTB trails.  For an MTB, the "perfect" pedal position is less important in general because you're constantly moving around and shifting your weight, therefore the best position is a balance between good fit and weight balance.  Now what if you redid your bike fit, but you lifted the front tire up enough to match a 5 or 10% grade?  You'd push the saddle forward to compensate, since the STA gets slacker.  It's true that when you go back to flat ground, it's a compromised position, but if your trails are constant up and down, does that matter?  Take this with a grain of salt, the new style geometry isn't for everyone.  I'd bet that a bike with a 69 deg HTA and 73 deg STA would be faster on flatter XC trails than the newer bikes with 66 deg HTA and 76 deg STA, especially tight courses.  But if that's what your trails are like and you want the perfect pedaling position on flat ground, then this likely isn't the bike for you.  If you downsize and push the saddle back, you'll just end up with a rearward weight balance, it'll be hard to weight the front tire in corners and won't feel right.  The slack HTA, steep STA, long reach, and long wheelbase all play together.

[Colt__Seavers]

Hi Quentin and thanks for your answer.

I want to keep my actual position on the new frame which I find perfect,  it would not be a problem even if the seat tube is 4 cm shorter, I just need to set my saddle 10 mm backwards.
The thing is, that this frame in M has a 30 mm longer reach than my Scalpel in L which is perfect if I want to build it with a shorter Stem
but in L it is 55mm longer .
Also the wheelbase in M is 50 mm longer than the Scalpel in L, the L would be a huge 100 mm difference.
The kind of riding I mostly do is agressive XC an marathon races so a reactive bike would be more of my taste.

If you want to keep your current position like on the Scalpel, keep the Scalpel! This frame has a completely different approach and you seem not wanting to live with it. The FM936 is true to size. If you run L in your other bikes, also use an L with this frame!
You asked for advice and everyone told you to get the L, but it seems you don't want to listen. Your body size and saddle height screams for the L. But if you want the M so badly, take the M, but don't blame anybody but you if you don't like it.
If I read through your comments I'd suggest not to buy this frame at all. It's not what you're looking for.