Carbonda fm936 Thoughts

[dan_cx]

Thanks for this, has anyone found where to buy replacements though?  Do I have to contact Vitus?

 I would guess that you'd need to contact Vitus or one of their dealers, but the interwebz can provide us all things if we have the right part numbers. At least with the Vitus parts docs, we now have a much better idea of all the pieces involved & can search for them easier when needed.

[PrincessZeeeeta]

Meet another one red carbonda
Thank you for all your posts!

[Mino8]

This bike is a

[dan_cx]

Hey gang, I know this is a long & drawn-out topic - "which size?" - but I'm about to put my order in, and I'm right in between M & L sizing, depending on which set of numbers you run with.  Using just reach & stack (compared with my current 120 Norco Revolver setup), M should be pretty darn close. You can see in the geo comparison chart where the L 120 revolver & the M 936 match up pretty well in reach & stack. But based on my height, the NS sizing recommends a M, while the Vitus sizing suggests a large. Nothing's ever easy, is it?

Any thoughts or practical experience from the peanut gallery?

Edit: I should mention this will be running a 120 fork, with a crown to axle measurement of 526mm, so the front end will come up 20mm and the angles will slack by 1º.

[Zomb1e]

Any thoughts or practical experience from the peanut gallery?

After quick check I suggest you L. With 120mm fork your reach will be 491, not 500. And I recommend you to use following link and check if you will be able to get nearly the same RAD and seated fit (distance from saddle to grips) as on your Norco on L sized Carbonda frame even with 35 mm stem:
https://madscientistmtb.com/bike-geometry-comparison/

[acedeuce802]

Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?

Have you ridden a bike with a 77 degree seat tube angle?  The point of the "progressive" geometry is to get a longer more stable wheelbase, and put you in a better position for steep climbing, while keeping saddle to handlebar length in check (hence long reach, long wheelbase, but steep STA to bring the saddle closer to the bars).  If you went with a medium, you'd likely slam the saddle rearwards, because the top tube is 30mm shorter than your large Revolver.  The large will give you similar top tube length to your Revolver, but with your body more forward and over the pedals.  It's a different feeling, but is the true intention of the bike.

What are your body dimensions?  I'm 5'10.5", so I'm also right in the middle of everyone's medium and large size charts, but I have shorter legs (about a 31" inseam) and long arms (around 6'1" arm span).  If I went for an FM936 I think I'd be inclined to go with a large, with the main downside being the 490mm seat tube length.  If you have long torso and/or long arms, then it will push you towards the larger bike, and vice versa.  For reference, my GG Smash is 481mm reach, 77 deg STA, and 625mm top tube, and it actually feels a bit small to me with a 40mm stem.

[dan_cx]

Have you ridden a bike with a 77 degree seat tube angle?  The point of the "progressive" geometry is to get a longer more stable wheelbase, and put you in a better position for steep climbing, while keeping saddle to handlebar length in check (hence long reach, long wheelbase, but steep STA to bring the saddle closer to the bars).  If you went with a medium, you'd likely slam the saddle rearwards, because the top tube is 30mm shorter than your large Revolver.  The large will give you similar top tube length to your Revolver, but with your body more forward and over the pedals.  It's a different feeling, but is the true intention of the bike.

My Revolver started as the 100mm version, with a 76º ST & 68.5 HT. I wanted the dual lock-out, only available on the 100, as the bike's primary purpose is XC marathon races. I've since bumped it up to 120mm, which slacked it out 1.1º respectively. I also came to the current Revolver from its previous generation model, which was the old school steep geometry. Night & day difference! The new progressive geo is leaps & bounds better!! My concern with the FM936's sizing is simply winding up with a frame that is smaller/bigger than what's acceptable to get my fit dialed correctly. It would definitely be easier if we were able to put hands on one of these before we order, but that's just not part of the deal we get when buying direct.

I plugged the numbers into the link that @Zomb1e posted, and it's pretty stinkin' close L Norco vs L FM936.

[thatwasfresh]

Hey how did you calculate the spoke lengths? did you go off the spec sheet of the goldix hubs? the specs of the hubs seem random.

Here is my FM936 SL freshly assembled. 
Size L frame, XX1 AXS groupset, SRAM Level Ultimate rainbow brakes, Centerline X 180/160mm discs, Sid Ultimate 120mm fork, Sidluxe 42.5mm shock, wheels fitted by myself with Light-Ride 27mm internal rims at 310g each, Goldix hubs , Pillar 1420 spokes. Look X-track race pedals, generic handlebar stem combo in 740mm and 60mm stem, ESI Grips racers Edge. 
With the AXS seatpost it weighs 10,430 kilos, and 9,890 kilos with the Elita One seatpost (respectively 23lb and 21,8lb).

I'll try to put a picture but the last time it crashed the topic... 

[PrincessZeeeeta]

Hey gang, I know this is a long & drawn-out topic - "which size?" - but I'm about to put my order in, and I'm right in between M & L sizing, depending on which set of numbers you run with.  Using just reach & stack (compared with my current 120 Norco Revolver setup), M should be pretty darn close. You can see in the geo comparison chart where the L 120 revolver & the M 936 match up pretty well in reach & stack. But based on my height, the NS sizing recommends a M, while the Vitus sizing suggests a large. Nothing's ever easy, is it?

Any thoughts or practical experience from the peanut gallery?

Edit: I should mention this will be running a 120 fork, with a crown to axle measurement of 526mm, so the front end will come up 20mm and the angles will slack by 1º.

So that is problem I faced too. According to raw geometry numbers size M (for my 187cm) should be okay as it very close to my Big Nine, but in reality it's completely different bike than your revolver or my big nine and size L feels not that big as on picture.

Actually the most noticable difference between Big Nine in size L and fm936 in L is slackest HTA. It feels like handlebars now completely useless, lol. However body position (on 120mm fork and 35mm stem) is more like on dirt bike with all the weight on pedals compared to "old geometry" cross country bike. Strange combo, need to get used to it.

[dan_cx]

After doing too much math, it's looking like the L is the size for me. Once it's built, mathematically speaking, it should fall within 2-4mm & .5º-1.5º of my Norco's setup, so I'd call that a win.

My question to those that have purchased already is between Regular or SL versions. Aside from weights, do you find that there is a marked difference in the overall build quality/durability of one vs the other? I've seen some chatter here about some internal "roughness" and some frame cracking issues with the Regular versions. Anything of note with the SL?

Just waiting on a buddy to decide if he's getting the FM1001, so we can save on shipping. Otherwise, I'm pulling the trigger on the 936 either way.

[Arno Knell]

We have bought both standard and super light.
Weight difference was only 50 gr.
Quality and durabilty is same.
Sorry for my poor english

[lukwy]

We have bought both standard and super light.
Weight difference was only 50 gr.
...

The same size and difference only by 50g ? What I've read it was reported like 150g.   

[Arno Knell]

Yes only 50 gr difference.
Size M super light 1950
Size M standard 2000
Within the tolerance +50/-50 gr.

[carbonazza]

Yesterday, I noticed the drive side BB bearings seized 
While removing the BB, some accumulated water went out.
I drilled a 2mm hole at the lowest point of the frame, to let the water flow out, hopefully to make the bearings last longer.

[urbs]

actually I got it the other day and installed it. Haven't traveled yet. From a home test it is clear that the initial sensitivity of the damper is higher and the final progression too. In general, the way the digressive and linear work of shock absorbers is drawn on the graphs is the same feeling from the test at home.

traction mode is softer than fox

difference in air spring progression in open mode and traction mode is about 30%

cable pull 15 mm, need twinloc remote

real stroke 38 mm

in details, the shock absorber feels simpler and cheaper than fox)

That is really helpful, thanks. If the real stroke on this one is 38mm, do you think you could have got away with a 165x45 one? Also, do you have any idea if the 165x40 one you have can be extended later to 165x42.5 (like other shocks) or if something about the nude set up means that is not possible? I like the idea of the nude shock but don't want to give up too much travel for it.

Also, let us know how you get one once you get to ride the bike with the new shock!