FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame

[zilcho]

Thoughts on a 140mm vs 150mm fork? The KHS build with this frame is running 150mm, and it looks like a lot of brands run 150mm front with 130mm or 140mm rear for their own trail/all-mountain frames, or 130mm front and 120mm rear for a traditional trail spec. I was wanting to use the 135mm rear spec and was planning to use a 140mm fork but questioning that choice now. 150mm puts you in the next category for Rockshox and Fox, but the Lyrik can be dropped to 140mm where the Fox 36 can not.

[Freda]

I ride it with a lyric 140mm, it is all good! I like the rockshox forks when you can easily change the travel.

If you go with 150mm fox it will most probably be just as good. 10mm is such a small amount that it doesn’t matter. Small geo change of course but not significant.

I think it is more about what you want the bike to be like, lighter for easy terrain or more capable but heavier. Same thing with the shock, piggyback or not? It’s all about the type of riding you do.

[mdc302]

Hey guys I’ve been reading these FM1001 posts since Oct. ‘21. Just joined the forum this week. Ordered and received my XL FM1001 frame in March via Wing @ Carbonda, and just finished the build a few days ago as I disassembled it, painted, etc. Been riding MTB for over 25 years and have several bikes, so I was patient with the build. Specs: Rockshox 150mm Lyrik Ultimate (42mm os) with WolfTooth Maxle and NWT cable retainer, Rockshox Super Deluxe Ultimate 185/55, One Up V2 210mm dropper, Truvativ Desc. 170mm carbon cranks, Shimano XT 12 speed & SLX 7100 four pods on 203’s f&r, Spank 40mm rise 780mm bars, 50mm stem, etc.  I apparently have been sent the FM1002 frame, or it has the wrong linkage… something. The Horst rocker link sits nosed down toward the shock at proper sag, and the upper triangle contacts the seat tube approx. 11mm before full compression of the 185/55 shock. Awaiting response from Carbonda.

[veeTee1Pah]

I apparently have been sent the FM1002 frame, or it has the wrong linkage… something. The manufacturer sticker inside the head tube reads FM1001. The Horst rocker link sits nosed down toward the shock at proper sag, and the upper triangle contacts the seat tube approx. 11mm before full compression of the 185/55 shock. Awaiting response from Carbonda.

It looks like your frame has the slight kink in the top tube of the FM1002.  The FM1001 looks like a straight top tube. I don't own either bike. Just looking at pictures.

[FullCarbonAlchemist]

Yeah that definitely looks like a 1002 to me!

[mdc302]

Yep after communicating more measurements & pics with Wing @ Carbonda… it apparently is the FM1002 front triangle. The rear stuff is the same. Man at this point I really wish I would have checked more thoroughly before stripping it (checked bearing tolerances while there), painting, and finishing the dang assembly

[bossman302]

On the bright side you did get a more expensive, longer travel frame for a cheaper price (assuming you paid the FM1001 price). At this point you just need to get a proper rear shock for that frame.

Any chance you noted the numbers on the bearings?

[mdc302]

True, but I specifically wanted the lesser travel 135mm frame with lesser wheel base. But, it looks like I’m keeping the existing 150mm frame and Carbonda is working out a deal for me to receive another FM1001 frame. So, if all goes as said… I’ll still come out ok and will build the FM1002 soon as well with a 160mm fork and a coil shock. More builds coming in my near future. I’ll leave plenty of feedback on both bikes when the time comes

[Neb]

Any thoughts about a 185x55 shock vs a 185x50mm shock? I think it's 120mm vs 135mm rear travel. I'm currently enjoying the bike with 120mm rear suspension but I can't help thinking if I'd prefer 135mm...

[Freda]

Any thoughts about a 185x55 shock vs a 185x50mm shock? I think it's 120mm vs 135mm rear travel. I'm currently enjoying the bike with 120mm rear suspension but I can't help thinking if I'd prefer 135mm...

Well like I have said before, it depends what you are using the bike for. I believe the suspension on this frame is so good that you don’t loose much effectiveness with 135mm travel, so for trail riding I like 135mm travel. But if you mainly ride very easy and smooth trail there is no need for more then 120mm. Then again if 120mm is enough I would go with a lighter frame like the Carbonda fm936.

Also with 135mm you can even use 130-150mm fork, but with 120mm rear travel maybe 130-140mm would be better.

[Neb]

My local trails are very steep and rocky, 120mm has been fine so far, the 29er and 120mm feels very similar to my other bike which is 160mm and 27.5.

Thanks for the feedback, I was worried that the extra travel could make the suspension a bit less poppy, I'll give 135mm a test.

Thanks

[filipes]

Can anybody, please, measure head tube length of L-size including head set caps (if there any protruding)?

As per specification, it should be 120mm, but some millimeters extra and head-set cap/spacer can make my already cut fork unusable for this frame... Thanks a lot, Filip

[Freda]

Can anybody, please, measure head tube length of L-size including head set caps (if there any protruding)?

As per specification, it should be 120mm, but some millimeters extra and head-set cap/spacer can make my already cut fork unusable for this frame... Thanks a lot, Filip

I have the the carbonda headset and about 6mm of extra with the top cover. Nothing between the fork and lower edge.

[Freda]

I going to the bike park soon so I decided to try a 160mm fork on this. It feels good while going downhill, but on normal trails the riding position is just too far back. This is also setup as mullet. The fm1002 is probably much better for more downhill oriented riding.
I did some measuring from photo and it seems with the mullet setup one loose one degree of head- and seattube angle and an additional degree with the 20mm longer fork. It is not exact of course but seems reasonable.

[FullCarbonAlchemist]

That’s good to know, I’ve enjoyed my FM1002 so much that I’m thinking about selling my branded bike this fall and doing another winter build of a 1001 for next spring as my “backup” bike for local riding (1002 is optimized for the big mountain trips) or when the 1002 is in for service. I had originally planned on running it with a 160 fork, whereas I have a 170 on the 1002.

I might have to plan for a 150 fork if the consensus among 1001 owners is that 160 is too much. I do like to overfork my other bikes by at least 10mm though and prefer a high front end roughly level with the saddle (and I run a fairly high seatpost).

This question of fork travel is one I still haven’t decided on, nor exactly which size frame to get; I run the Large 1002 which fits pretty well, and am generally between a Large and XL on most frames (6 feet tall, long legs) so I’m thinking XL given the 1001 apparently runs a half size small….