Carbonda FM909

[endo.alley]

Thx, let me know. I also have Fox SC, 34.
How it's possible to install SlackR? AFAIK it's for IS42.

Here is what the 9point8 website says.

" IMPORTANT COMPATIBILITY INFORMATION
Slack-R is now compatible with MOST Tapered IS headsets. There are 3 different styles of upper cups now to go along with the IS52 lowers. IS41, IS42, and IS42S.

IS41/IS52 will fit a number of bikes from manufacturers such as Yeti, Santa Cruz, and Trek (eliminates the need for a Knock Block in most cases). Cube is an exception as they use a deeper upper bearing seat and the Slack-R IS41 will not sit properly in the Cube frames.

IS42/IS52 will fit many bikes from Cannondale, Norco, Marin, Orbea, GT, Revel, Scott and many more including some Specialized with a standard depth IS42/IS52 headset. Standard bearing seat depth is 3mm

IS42S/IS52 will fit Specialized bikes that have the 6.8mm deep upper bearing seat. (some Specialized bearings sit deeper than the standard IS42 geometry so they require their own specific top cup to insure proper fitment)

Headset types do vary across the same manufacturer, make sure you are sure what kind of headset you have. (IS/EC/ZS or hybrids of these)

Some IS bearing seats in the frames have a smaller bearing seat inside diameter than others so in some cases a bit of sanding will be required to fit in the 34.5mm upper sleeve and 44.5mm lower sleeve. In most cases the frame allow the kits to drop right in but in some cases opening up the upper and/or lower bearing seat inside diameter(s) will be required so double check your frame clearance prior to ordering if unsure.

Contact support@9point8.ca if you are unsure about your application prior to ordering."

[Eneen]

But the upper bearing of 909 is IS52, isn't it?

[RDY]

But the upper bearing of 909 is IS52, isn't it?

It's IS52 / IS52.

[Eneen]

What's real weight of M size? Carbonda specifies 1770, but @Manofmanymissions's frame was 1990, painted. So it's rather on heavy side, 1770 +40 for axle +150 for paint +30 for protections or rather paint is only 100 but frame is 1820... Just curious as I'm thinking about buying unpainted...

[multig]

My L with hanger - 1818.

[Eneen]

Does anyone ride this frame with 30T or 32T chainring? I wonder how climbing feels. Antisquat graph shows positive AS for less then about 50% sag (I assume that 25% is the optimal for this bike), so with the default sag bike should rise while pedaling. How does it feel in real life?

[Pedaldancer]

Does anyone ride this frame with 30T or 32T chainring? I wonder how climbing feels. Antisquat graph shows positive AS for less then about 50% sag (I assume that 25% is the optimal for this bike), so with the default sag bike should rise while pedaling. How does it feel in real life?

Small chainring is not an issue regarding clearance... so I don't get the point? Also.. Climbing is not different from my former bike... you have to work, it is not going up without effort . But due to the better position (more in the front) the pedaling is more efficient. I can bring more power to the pedal.

[Eneen]

Small chainring is not an issue regarding clearance... so I don't get the point? Also.. Climbing is not different from my former bike... you have to work, it is not going up without effort . But due to the better position (more in the front) the pedaling is more efficient. I can bring more power to the pedal.

No, no, I'm not talking about clearance. I will most likely use 120mm fork, so this won't be an issue.
This frame kinematics looks like to be optimized for 32T chainring. It's visible on Julian's graph. 34T chainring will cause some bobbing on smaller cogs, 32T should be spot-on and 30T is too small and will rise suspension while pedaling. Do you have 32T front chainring? If yes, how does frame climb with it?

[Pedaldancer]

No, no, I'm not talking about clearance. I will most likely use 120mm fork, so this won't be an issue.
This frame kinematics looks like to be optimized for 32T chainring. It's visible on Julian's graph. 34T chainring will cause some bobbing on smaller cogs, 32T should be spot-on and 30T is too small and will rise suspension while pedaling. Do you have 32T front chainring? If yes, how does frame climb with it?

I was talking of clearance between chainring and frame. With 32 it is not that much space left although it's allowed to 36T. But maybe that's also because I chose the XT  XC crankset from shimano, which has bit reduced chainline.
But now I got your point. Yes i use 32T. But to be honest.... I chose that because of the desired small gears.
Yes it climbs good. But this feeling is more due to the better pedaling efficiency.  Since I can't and won't compare to 34 or 30 that's not really helpful for you? And the rocking movement..I just accept it as a part of the game. I don't have the feeling of getting seasick or heavy bobbing....

[Eneen]

Yep, from carbonda pdf it looks like there's about 2mm of clearance, that's close, but hopefully enough.
I've never had fs bike before and want to buy something nice. 909 looks good, but questions always arise, that's why I'm asking. No, I don't need comparing chainrings, no problem. Just looking for opinions how this frame rides on 32T.
I don't own linkage, but made quick analysis of this frame to be sure that my kid can ride it without excessive bobbing. If you've got a bit of bob I think you can try setting bike higher, e.g. sag to about 25% (unless you are already there). It will change contact patches-COG relation.
This is the picture of size L with 29x2.6 tires, 120mm fork and COG 700mm over BB to show this relation.

[RDY]

Not sure 2.6" will fit - guess it depends on the rim and tire combo.  Maybe others can chime in.

Re: chainring clearance - the frame is designed for Boost chainline so if you have a non-Boost crankset then naturally you're going to have reduced chainring clearance.  Mine still isn't built up yet, but we test fit the BB / crank / chainring as I was a little concerned that a Garbaruk oval 36T wouldn't fit, but it does.  You *might* fit a round 38T.

[Eneen]

Yeah, I've got Kenda Booster Pro 27.5x2.6, they measure 65mm at knobs and 63mm at carcass on i36 rim, so it's rather 2.5.
I've modeled and printed part of chainstay based on carbonda blueprint, here is the result after careful matching 27.5->29. So I will most likely buy 29 version, it's tight but I think it should be ok. But yeah, true, heavy 2.6 won't fit for sure.

[Pedaldancer]

Not sure 2.6" will fit - guess it depends on the rim and tire combo.  Maybe others can chime in.

Re: chainring clearance - the frame is designed for Boost chainline so if you have a non-Boost crankset then naturally you're going to have reduced chainring clearance.  Mine still isn't built up yet, but we test fit the BB / crank / chainring as I was a little concerned that a Garbaruk oval 36T wouldn't fit, but it does.  You *might* fit a round 38T.

The XT has 2 cranksets with different Q factors. The more narrow one is more for XC usage. Or simply for people with smaller hips not wanting to feel like John Wayne on a horse. Both of them are boost. You should not mix that stuff up..

[carbonazza]

The XT has 2 cranksets with different Q factors. The more narrow one is more for XC usage. Or simply for people with smaller hips not wanting to feel like John Wayne on a horse. Both of them are boost. You should not mix that stuff up..

Do you get the same chainline as with SRAM Eagle ?
In 1x12, back pedaling on the biggest cog made the chain drop easily on one of my recent mount with a chainline of 53mm.

[RDY]

The XT has 2 cranksets with different Q factors. The more narrow one is more for XC usage. Or simply for people with smaller hips not wanting to feel like John Wayne on a horse. Both of them are boost. You should not mix that stuff up..

Then I'm not sure why he was talking about chainring clearance, if they're just QF difference.