FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame

[Freda]

I'm unsure if I should buy a Large or Medium frame. I'm 180cm tall with an 84cm Inseam, the size chart would lean towards a Large with a reach of 472 but I've been reading the sizing guide from Lee McCormack (LeeLikesBikes) and that suggests I get a Medium at 450 reach.

My current bike Nukeproof Scout Large has a reach of 450 (466 Sagged) but with a 35mm stem the front keeps lifting on steep climbs and it feels a little cramped, but when I had a longer stem on the bike I suffered from cyclist palsy and my fingers went numb. So do I need something longer or shorter... What do you guys think?

Also, question 2. What is the BB height on this bike? I'm considering building it as a 27.5 initially to save a buck and I'll buy a new fork and wheelset later on. But if the BB is too low that won't work.

What are everyone's thoughts?

Your Scout has 73 degree seattube so you are sitting on the rear axle while climbing, that is why the front wheel is lifting. This frame is completely different.

Sizing based only on reach is strange on a frame that most people ride sitting most of the time. The XL doesnt even have as much effective toptube as your Scout has. So on an M size you would feel very cramped while sitting, unless you use a really long stem. The difference is over 60mm!!

27.5” inch wheels will give you a low bottom bracket but should be rideable, at least with short cranks. My mullet setup has a 332mm bb static and 170mm cranks. Your would be at least 10mm lower.

But all this is dependent on riding style, terrain and preference so there is no right or wrong answer.

[willow79]

First, apollogies for the image size, I've edited my original post, I'm on a 27" screen and didn't realize how badly it would scale on smaller screens.

That color is just gorgeous. Nice choice.

Thank you, it's a candy red over a metalic black, has a nice flip from a deep burgandy, to a vibrant blood red, depending on the light, I need to get some pics in strong sunlight to show how the colour "pops"

You took a Medium with 184cm??? Really... You could take a XL, L would be Down sizing.

An XL would have been to big for me, and have me to stretched out for my comfort, but yes a L would have been the more appropriate size for me, however the diference between the L and M is 22mm on the reach and 13.5mm on the stack, I'm currently running a 40mm stem so can find an extra 10mm there if needed by switching to a 50mm stem and can switch to a 35mm riser bar if I feel I need the extra height.
But from my initial test ride the bike feels very comfortble and not at all cramped, I'll find out for sure once i take it on a longer ride, but I think at most, I'll just have to switch a spacer to below the stem.

[emu26]

First, apollogies for the image size, I've edited my original post, I'm on a 27" screen and didn't realize how badly it would scale on smaller screens.

Willow, no need to apologise, it is a very common issue and obviously, if it was noticeable to the person posting they wouldn't have posted that way, it's just the way the site scales pics for various user interfaces.  It's also not just restricted to this site, but this does seem to be worse than most of the others I visit.

Thank you for taking the time to edit the post.  The portrait pics still don't quite fit on my screen but are close enough that I can see how fantastic your bike looks, well done, you must be happy with it. I'm sure they would fit fine if google banners and window tool bars weren't occupying real estate top and bottom.  That colour really does look great.

[Neb]

I'm the same height and took a Large. I very nearly ordered an XL due to the top tube length being so short. I've fitted a 50mm stem to lengthen the bike a bit. The medium would have been far too small for me (my other bike has a top tube of 630mm, the large FM1001 is 600mm).

It climbs and descends really well, so I'm happy I made the right decision

[G161]

It climbs and descends really well, so I'm happy I made the right decision
[/quote]

Thanks Neb, how is the pedaling comfort? I often have long XC style grinds?

[G161]

Your Scout has 73 degree seattube so you are sitting on the rear axle while climbing, that is why the front wheel is lifting. This frame is completely different.

Sizing based only on reach is strange on a frame that most people ride sitting most of the time. The XL doesnt even have as much effective toptube as your Scout has. So on an M size you would feel very cramped while sitting, unless you use a really long stem. The difference is over 60mm!!

27.5” inch wheels will give you a low bottom bracket but should be rideable, at least with short cranks. My mullet setup has a 332mm bb static and 170mm cranks. Your would be at least 10mm lower.

But all this is dependent on riding style, terrain and preference so there is no right or wrong answer.

Thanks Freda. What if I threw a 160mm 27.5 fork on the bike? That'll raise the BB enough until I get a chance to go 29er...

[bossman302]

I'm also 180cm tall and followed Lee Likes Bikes suggestion and went with the medium. I can say it fits me quite well and totally happy. I really think had I listened to those that said to get a large I would have been very unhappy. I do not feel cramped while in the seated and this is with a 38mm stem. And I do all my climbing while seated.  Looks like willow79 who is taller at 184 says the medium fits him well even though a large would probably fit him well too. Don't know if you watch any of the vids on YouTube where Lee talks about sizing but he has a bunch of good info. At the end of the day none of us can tell what size is right for you.

PS. I think its interesting that those who went with a large are running longer stems then those that went with the medium. You would think it would be other way around

[Freda]

Thanks Freda. What if I threw a 160mm 27.5 fork on the bike? That'll raise the BB enough until I get a chance to go 29er...

At least in theory a 27.5” 160mm fork should be the same as a 29” 140mm fork static. Still with more travel it changes more while riding so the feel is different. If it is positive or negative I don’t know. But of course you can ride it!

[Neb]

I'm also 180cm tall and followed Lee Likes Bikes suggestion and went with the medium. I can say it fits me quite well and totally happy. I really think had I listened to those that said to get a large I would have been very unhappy. I do not feel cramped while in the seated and this is with a 38mm stem. And I do all my climbing while seated.  Looks like willow79 who is taller at 184 says the medium fits him well even though a large would probably fit him well too. Don't know if you watch any of the vids on YouTube where Lee talks about sizing but he has a bunch of good info. At the end of the day none of us can tell what size is right for you.

PS. I think its interesting that those who went with a large are running longer stems then those that went with the medium. You would think it would be other way around

It is interesting, I'll look into the Lee likes bikes videos about sizing. I guess it doesn't matter as long as you enjoy riding it! But I do like to understand theory of things like this.

I'm keeping my old bike for the moment, so part of me choosing a Large and 50mm stem is to replicate the sizing so it isn't too different to swap between bikes.

[willow79]

Took the bike out for longer ride today, and I'm even more happier with my choice in this frame, absolutley flys down hill, yet is so smooth pedaling uphill, with very little bob.

With it being a glorious sunny day I got a few more pics



So difficult to capture the colour in a picture, but did catch the metalic sparkle showing through the candy on the top tube in this shot



This last pic gives a good shot of all the colour variation in the "red" in the sunlight

[RDY]

I've decided to go with an FM1001 and build it 120/120 as a durable, slack down country bike.

Manitou R7 Pro up front and Manitou Mara at the rear. 

Can anyone comment as to whether they think the 44mm offset or 51mm offset fork would be more suitable?

My assumption is that 51mm would be normal.  But presumably as I'm losing a little bit in axle to crown length due to lower travel, I'll be operating with a bit less trail than normal.  Would going with the lower offset fork to increase trail be desirable?

I'm really not very knowledgeable at all about MTB geo and  its effect on ride and the suspension.

[FullCarbonAlchemist]

I've decided to go with an FM1001 and build it 120/120 as a durable, slack down country bike.

Manitou R7 Pro up front and Manitou Mara at the rear. 

Can anyone comment as to whether they think the 44mm offset or 51mm offset fork would be more suitable?

My assumption is that 51mm would be normal.  But presumably as I'm losing a little bit in axle to crown length due to lower travel, I'll be operating with a bit less trail than normal.  Would going with the lower offset fork to increase trail be desirable?

I'm really not very knowledgeable at all about MTB geo and  its effect on ride and the suspension.

Running the rear at 120 doesn’t change geometry, but a 120 fork would be a *drastic* change in a generally unhelpful direction. When I was thinking of getting a 1001 (and I still might at some point if I’m happy with my 1002), I planned to run it with a 160 fork and most people run it with a 150.

Remember that no matter what you do with the rear travel, the geometry was designed around a 140 fork and most people like modern MTBs with an extra 10mm front travel over stock.

You might think that a less slack head angle is okay for a “downcountry” type setup but you’ll also be steepening the already steep seat angle to a fair ridiculous degree. Pedaling at that angle could get uncomfortable and the bike would likely be tippy, prone to going over the handlebars at the slightest provocation.

Really wouldn’t recommend it. Personally if I was going to run a 1001 at 120mm frame travel I’d probably go with a 140 fork, minimum.

[RDY]

Bear in mind the frame is sold by a Spanish brand in 120/120mm config and I believe there was mention of another doing it too.  It would seem odd for them to do if FlyBike didn't support it or felt the geometry was messed up.

Still, duly noted.

[RDY]

I don't think the change in seat and head angles are that significant.  Possibly you might think they'd be more, and I feared they would be after you highlighted it.   I used a calculator to check though.

Going from a typical 547mm 140mm fork to a 524.5mm R7 Pro results in 78.1° > 79.1° SA and 65.5° > 66.5° HA. 

Reach is up 10mm and stack down by 8mm, but I can add a spacer and steeper SA will basically mean parity on reach.

1° difference definitely isn't going to make descending dangerous.  There are more extreme numbers stock these days on some bikes.

I think the moral of the story is that wheelbases are so damned long on modern MTBs, even losing or adding a couple of cm to Axle to crown won't effect angles too unduly.

Does seem like the 51mm offset fork would be better (if I can source it) as wheelbase would lose 9.2mm instead of 16.8mm. 

Anyway, thanks for raising what you did, as your concerns led me to look into it further.  And it looks ok to me.

Further edit.  Adding one of these will https://www.bike24.com/p2332941.html will cut STA and HTA angle changes to 0.5° for each.

[endo.alley]

I would consider the shorter fork offset if you want the bike to handle better at higher speed.