Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - max7373

Pages: [1]
1
29er / Re: Carbonda FM909
« on: April 09, 2022, 07:06:40 AM »
Quote
Lee McCormack's and Peter Verdone's methodics.

Interesting approach. I didn't know that before. I will take a closer look at it. Peter's bikes look pretty "wild" at first glance". But it seems as if he knows what he is doing.

Quote
Reach <370mm with 80mm stem. So .. pretty short. If yours are much longer that's maybe a hint to go for an M 909 frame.

Yes, I drive a more stretched position there. I have on the bikes a Reach of 387, respectively 390mm and a 120 / 100mm stem. Currently, I'm leaning towards the M, but I'm still undecided whether the position is too "comfortable" for me.

I'll give you an update when I have some new thoughts. It may help others if I share my thought process here. :)

2
29er / Re: Carbonda FM909
« on: April 08, 2022, 07:51:08 AM »
Quote
If you are happy with riding position on your current bike, the best way is to measure your bike's RAD (distance from BB center to grips center) and try to achieve the same value on 909 with 35-40mm stem.

Hey Zomb1e, thanks for your input. Currently I ride only road bike and cyclocorss, so it is difficult or not possible to transfer these values to a mountain bike, right?

3
29er / Re: Carbonda FM909
« on: April 08, 2022, 05:54:02 AM »
What frame size do you recommend at 176cm and a leg length of 81cm? So have shorter legs than average.

I am wavering between S and M. I want to build the bike with a 120mm suspension fork and still ride a sporty position.

I  added the comparison of the geometries. (Screenshots are taken from https://www.bike-stats.de)

Pages: [1]