How do you know that for sure ?
NS Bikes designed their own rear triangle maybe, with the help of flybike-asia maybe, but nothing is certain, or did I miss a boat ? 

You're right, it will definitely have slightly different suspension kinematics, that's already clear by the different stroke lengths.

But the anti squat is actually not affected by that. It's a fixed pivot design, so the only thing that matters is how that main pivot point is placed. You could roughly say that if the chain moves through the main pivot point, anti squat is about 100 per cent at sag and it will change less with different gears (compare for example Canyon Lux, Specialized Epic...). Or course that depends on the center of gravity etc...

That's why the 32t seems better for the FM936, but that's just theory. In reality, pro riders never run anything smaller than a 36t on bikes that are optimized for 34t, and they don't seem to have any trouble.

What software is this btw?

It's called "Linkage X3". I really like it so far.

For the FM936, I've used a detailed vector graphic that Carbonda sent me, so I think it should be pretty accurate.

Seems like the S3 has a much better suspension design than the FM936.

Attached is the leverage curve sent by Adam at Carbonda and the S3 (thanks Julian)

As you can see the S3 is progressive to linear, similar to most modern XC bikes designed for an air shock

The FM936 has a really pronounced falling rate in the end of travel, this would mean it has very little bottom out resistance. Almost no bikes are designed like this today. We want a rising rate.

I have been looking at these bikes for my next downcountry bike but seems the S3 is a better choice for anyone who will bottom it out. Too bad its heavier than the FM936 by more than 400grs (comparing the SL version)

You're welcome

Your analysis is correct, but I'm not sure if you can trust Adam's material. It seems like he's also using X3 to calculate the leverage ratio, but with that software it's absolutely impossible to calculate the actual leverage ratio of the FM936, because it does not have any means to factor in the flexing seat stays. If you only put in the actual existing links, the software will have a calculation error. I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure a flexing part does not have one fixed pivot point, but one that moves throughout the bend (similar to a VPP). That's why I have refrained from posting any leverage ratio stuff on the FM936. I've tried to get close to the actual leverage ratio by using a classic swingarm 4-bar design (so one additional pivot point in the seat stays) and placing the rear link pivot in the middle of the seat stay, where it's the most bendy. But placing it there will cause the seatstay to shorten a lot more than the actual bending does. So neither leverage ratio nor actual travel can be properly calculated.

I've tried out various different positions for that rear pivot point and the leverage ratio was always fairly progressive. That is also supported by what NS Bikes claim for the not-so-different Synonym and by what FM936 riders have reported so far. So I believe that the actual leverage ratio is absolutely fine for a down country bike.

I've attached some examples for different pivot placements in the middle and further back as well as one where it pivots around the rear axle. The "truth" could be somewhere between those estimates.

Do you meaning pedaling more in circle than like two pistons ?

That's part of it, yes. But I'm no physicist either, so as a quick disclaimer, I'll say that my "knowledge" consists of stuff I read and observations I made

When it comes to anti squat, I think it's safe to say that there's no "holy grail number" for everyone. If you think of 100% anti squat being a perfect equilibrium between inertia forces compressing and chain pull extending the rear end, then countless other factors need to be considered. I guess rider weight alone would't really matter, since a heavier rider has to push harder (and therefore create stronger chain pull) to accelerate a certain amount. The higher inertia force would be countered by the stronger chain pull. The center of gravity however definitely plays a role, and it may be something I haven't considered enough when giving you these anti squat values. Riders with longer legs will have a higher center of gravity, which leads to less anti squat. So I guess my diagrams aren't that helpfull afterall

But as you said, the "roundness" of your pedaling will have an impact for sure. Then there's upper body movement, for example bringing the soulders down with every pedal push. Also, some people tend to sit slightly too high and start moving their hips when pedaling. And I personally experienced how even your upper body tension and how tightly you grip the handlebars make a difference.

So I guess it's generally hard to say what or who to fault when you have pedal bob. I'd start by trying to find out if the suspension compresses (anti squat too low) or extends (anti suqat too high) with every push on the pedals. Then you could try countering that with changing your pedaling technique, body tension and/or chain ring size.

The OneUp V2 has an short stack height compared to other droppers. When doing the math, 490mm ST - 230mm Stem Clearance = 260mm to the dropper bottom + 420mm Total Dropper Length(@150mm) = 680ish.

Math looks good to me. A 130 dropper would be fine in there. But considering your indended use, 130mm isn't a lot...

What wfl3 said. I currently have a 70mm stem and my seat 20mm back on my Trail two to increase my "real top tube length" and it feels "okay" for pedaling. Moving my seat back to 0mm and running a 40mm stem will give me back, 50mm or more.

Reach is a vertical measurement for when I'm up and out of the seat and that 490mm reach will give "confidence".

Again, further research into similar NS, Vitus etc. and other comparable bikes, that large is about right for my size. Keep in mind that this frame is known for it's "progressive" geometry, more of a comfy marathon XC bike rather than a traditional all out sprint XC bike.

What the manufacturer says and what you want are two different things. All that NS/Vitus etc. are doing is basically saying that everyone should size up. The geometry itself isn't very radical, just the suggested frame size. Look at the Specialized Epic Evo - easily the benchmark of progressive down country - which is identical in size L compared to the FM936's size M. Of course there are bikes like the Transition Spur, which is more trail than down country. Geometry wise you could try and replicate that with the FM936, but suspension wise it won't come close to the Spur's 120mm rear.

That being said, if you want to run a 40mm stem, go large. Considering the difference in stack height between your Cannondale and the FM936, the actual reach difference is even lower. So if you want to run the handlebars at the same height, the FM936 will have only 30mm more reach in size M and 60mm more reach in size L. Personally I would run a lower handlebar with no rise, making the size M feel a lot longer. But putting it higher fits your idea of a chilled marathon bike.

One more thing: Some people seem to neglect that a riser bar effectively increases your stem length. Every 10mm of rise give you about 4mm of stem length, since you're moving the bar up vertically, away from the steerer tube. That's why probably no one runs a 40mm stem and a flat bar, that would just be too nervous. On the other hand, a longer stem and a riser bar will feel very old school. So either get a short stem and riser, or longer stem and flat bar. What you choose is determined by the desired cockpit height, the effective stem length is the same.

I appreciate the explanation but I think the ratio is off because 165X38 shock is 100 mm on most bikes so taking the trunnion in consideration 140 trunnion should be about 105 ,  the 142.5 should be about 112 and the 145 should be about 120.  Maybe the stroke changes that slightly but unless you're compressing the shock to get in the frame then the numbers are still skewed.  Not to mention that if it doesn't have capability to full compress the shock and bottom out then what's the point?

I'm not quite sure if I fully understand what you mean... But there seem to be some errors in your thinking. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

You say that "165x38 shock is 100mm on most bikes", do you mean that a frame with a 165x38 shock usually provides 100mm of travel? Well it may be, that many bikes with these shock dimensions have 100mm of travel. But the amount of travel that the shock stroke translates to, depends on the leverage ratio of the frame. And that cannot be "off", it is what it is. Every bike is different. That just depends on how the linkage is designed. Like some bikes with a 210x55 shock have 140mm of travel, others have 160mm.

The Ican here for example has an average leverage ratio of 2,5. That means that for every 1mm of shock compression, the rear wheel moves upwards by 2,5mm - on average. It's probably a progressive frame, so the leverage ratio will reduce throughout the travel.

Now for this, the only important number is the stroke length of the shock, which is the second number, like "38". The first number - 165 - is the eye to eye, so the overall length of the shock. That should usually not be messed with, since any changes will drastically affect the geometry of the bike. Also, it doesn't matter if its trunnion or standard mount. The eye to eye is what counts. In this bike, you should only run 165mm, trunnion or standard.

What the guys are talking about, is keeping the eye to eye length the same, but changing the stroke length of the shock. So when the standard shock would be fully compressed, a longer stroke shock still has some more to go, resulting in more travel. The limit of this is reached when the seat stays hit the seat tube. What Ben did, is go to this point of maximum compression and measure the remaining eye to eye distance, which is 115mm. A 165mm shock would need to be compressed by 50 mm to get to this point. But you need some safety room to avoid breaking the frame at the first bottom out, also because the bottom out bumpers of the shock still give way a little when it's compressed hard. That's why Ben suggested a 45mm stroke shock may work.

The rest is math. Let's say the leverage ratio is 2,5 at the end of the stroke (it's probably a little lower), then an additional 2,5 mm of shock stroke will give you 6,25mm more travel. Take that twice and you have your 112mm with a 45mm stroke instead of the standard 100mm with a 40mm stroke.

Sorry, a lot to read, I know... I hope I didn't misunderstand you, just thought this might help. Took me a while to get behind this linkage stuff too.

Based on the info that lightcarbon show on their website, anti squat lies at about 90 percent at sag, which is not too bad. I'm not an expert myself, but from what I've picket up, 100 percent is the rough goal for pedal friendly bikes. In an ideal world, that means that when you push on your pedal, the inertia force that compress the rear suspension and the drive train's "pulling" force that extends the rear suspension are perfectly equal. But that never happens. Way too many things that change, like pedaling techniques, different sag setups, upper body movements, even the size of your chain ring has a huge impact.

So yeah, 90 percent should do the job just fine. A firm lockout will definitely help, if its not too rough.

I will add that you should also take a look at those new Carbonda models. I'm new to the scene myself, but they seem to pop up everywhere with great quality frames. The FM1001 should totally suit your needs.