Author Topic: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame  (Read 83313 times)

binaryagent

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #345 on: October 26, 2022, 06:29:18 PM »
I have seen exactly nobody ever route their brake hose external to the fork.
Read through this thread and you'll see it's about 50/50.

If you do a Google search for rockshox lyrik, you won't find a picture of the brake hose routed external, all of them internal.
This is pretty much true. All of them look awkward to me. Just because one guy does something one way and everyone follows doesn't make it the right way.

Because if you look at the rockshox guide you will see that is the opposite of what they suggest.
This is BS. I checked. It just says to "secure the disc brake hose into the guide". The guides on forks are different. Mine clearly directs the housing around the outside of the fork tube.

On the surface, and as a purist, one would say it should be routed internally so that it isn't exposed to the "elements" and because it's a naturally cleaner look. However, if you look at how closely it's routed to the fork there is little chance of something getting caught. I'd say I've got a much better chance of getting a cedar branch stuck in my eye. Also, every time I ride I get a stick tossed up into my spokes and kicked around. Having the cable routed internally increases the chances of that stick getting lodged and breaking a spoke.

In the end I've wasted way too much of my life on this subject.  :D

brex

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #346 on: October 26, 2022, 06:36:16 PM »
Well good luck having it done the wrong way.
And yes, sram absolutely DO recommend you do it the right way. If you don't want to believe their docs, send them an email.
Yes, every manufacturer on the planet routing it correctly does make it the right way. Some random bike building novice doing it wrong doesn't make his way the right way.
But whatever, you do you and have your brake hose routed the wrong way.

FullCarbonAlchemist

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #347 on: October 26, 2022, 07:12:58 PM »
It can be indeed a great way to prevent the bar going over the top tube if you crash  ;D

At the angles they’re set on, and with some slack inside the frame, I’ve had the bars go past the top tube and they do pull a bit but don’t actually yank the bars to a hard stop as they spin unless you go way past that 90 degree angle. You can definitely run them a lot shorter than with some other frames (particularly externally routed ones that run along the down tube with exit points a lot lower or further back than these ports) without it being particularly risky.

That said, I would never in a million years run my brake line on the outside of the fork, any more than I’d ever be caught dead running the kind of huge, tree-hooking bullhorn bar ends my first MTB came with in 1993. Partly due to the substantial possibility of literally being caught dead running them. Because they killed me.

But mainly because they’re bad bike fashion. Which is a far worse offense!
« Last Edit: October 26, 2022, 07:14:48 PM by FullCarbonAlchemist »

Zomb1e

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #348 on: October 27, 2022, 04:13:00 AM »
I have seen exactly nobody ever route their brake hose external to the fork.
This is just an old school way of hose routing. Ten years ago it was quite popular, but of course internal routing is better. Even better is hose routing on Manitou forks  ;)

binaryagent

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #349 on: October 27, 2022, 06:28:41 AM »
Well good luck having it done the wrong way.
And yes, sram absolutely DO recommend you do it the right way. If you don't want to believe their docs, send them an email.
Yes, every manufacturer on the planet routing it correctly does make it the right way. Some random bike building novice doing it wrong doesn't make his way the right way.
But whatever, you do you and have your brake hose routed the wrong way.
This is the kind of person you start talking to in a bar and quickly start trying to find someone else to talk to.  :P

chetosmachine

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #350 on: October 27, 2022, 07:31:22 AM »
This is just an old school way of hose routing. Ten years ago it was quite popular, but of course internal routing is better. Even better is hose routing on Manitou forks  ;)

Not true, this is not old school unless you mean couple weeks old is old school, and quite popular mean 3 people assembling bikes for what looks like the first time ever.


casual_build

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #351 on: October 27, 2022, 02:57:38 PM »
Cable routing between the forks legs is extremely important!

Just kidding, it really doesn't matter much. The main reason the brake house should be routed between the fork legs is to prevent brake hose damage in a crash. The fork's cast metal lowers are ready to protect your brake hose from sharp rocks and impacts.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2022, 04:21:09 PM by casual_build »

filipes

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #352 on: October 31, 2022, 07:16:46 AM »
FM10 has 74 seat tube angle compared to 78 of FM1001. That is big difference and clear explanation of its longer effective top tube...
I actually like steep seat post more than I anticipated!

This frame's geometry is almost exactly the same as my FM10 except that the reach is about 0.5" shorter and the effective top tube length is 1.5" shorter. Also I had a 140mm travel fork on the FM10 vs 150mm on the FM1001. The FM10 felt like riding a chopper at times when I first got it. This bike feels completely different and seems to have a shorter turning radius. A few times going down drops the front wheel has gotten a little squirrely since my weight was so far forward on the fork. The steering is much more responsive all around and I'm still learning to use the improvement in control. Beyond that the change from X-Fusion to top tier Rockshox has been the biggest difference. The ability to lay down power over rocks and roots makes the ride much more relaxed and saves energy. I have more confidence in keeping traction through rough turns and the load on my arms and shoulders has decreased significantly.   
I added the RWC roller bearing to the top shock mount. The drag on the suspension was surely insignificant to the shock response but it just bugged me. :)
It's around 28.4 lbs with pedals.

helmat

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #353 on: November 01, 2022, 02:36:40 PM »
One thing I'm still interested in, is there much pedal bob when pedalling? Antisquat appears to be relatively low in the linkage analysis I have seen. Are you guys using the climb switch a lot?

bossman302

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #354 on: November 01, 2022, 03:29:32 PM »
One thing I'm still interested in, is there much pedal bob when pedalling? Antisquat appears to be relatively low in the linkage analysis I have seen. Are you guys using the climb switch a lot?

For me, I feel this frame has very little pedal bob. I've never locked out the rear shock and I believe I've only locked out the fork twice. Both were on steep fire road climbs that would never end. It didn't make any difference. I was just pooped!!

FullCarbonAlchemist

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #355 on: November 02, 2022, 02:52:05 AM »
One thing I'm still interested in, is there much pedal bob when pedalling? Antisquat appears to be relatively low in the linkage analysis I have seen. Are you guys using the climb switch a lot?

The 1001 and 1002 pedal similarly (same linkage, only the front triangle and shock size vary)…the 1002 is one of the best pedaling 4-bar bikes I’ve ever tried. Sure it bobs a little when steeply climbing like pretty much any full suspension bike — but the difference between it and the most efficient designs out there (CBF/DW Link, VPP etc) really isn’t that dramatic in my experience.

Exotic suspension systems will always be able to eke out a little more pedaling and/or bump performance than a 4-bar but not necessarily by enough to justify the price or complexity differences.

I’ve learned along the way that graphs are a useful guide but since they aren’t presented in a standardized format or scale, it can be tough to compare them at a glance. I learned way more by riding two drastically different 4-bars and then looking at the graphs with my experiences in mind than I ever did by just looking at the graphs the two different companies put out even though their starting and average leverages were similar. The different graph scales exaggerated the differences in their curves — the reality was far more subtle.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2022, 02:53:39 AM by FullCarbonAlchemist »

casual_build

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #356 on: November 02, 2022, 03:04:30 PM »
The 1001 and 1002 pedal similarly (same linkage, only the front triangle and shock size vary)…the 1002 is one of the best pedaling 4-bar bikes I’ve ever tried. Sure it bobs a little when steeply climbing like pretty much any full suspension bike — but the difference between it and the most efficient designs out there (CBF/DW Link, VPP etc) really isn’t that dramatic in my experience.

Exotic suspension systems will always be able to eke out a little more pedaling and/or bump performance than a 4-bar but not necessarily by enough to justify the price or complexity differences.

I’ve learned along the way that graphs are a useful guide but since they aren’t presented in a standardized format or scale, it can be tough to compare them at a glance. I learned way more by riding two drastically different 4-bars and then looking at the graphs with my experiences in mind than I ever did by just looking at the graphs the two different companies put out even though their starting and average leverages were similar. The different graph scales exaggerated the differences in their curves — the reality was far more subtle.

I also built a FM1002. When I bought the bike, I thought I was missing out on new suspension platforms, because 4-bar is an older design. Now looking around online, I see a lot of experienced riders prefer 4-bar suspension over VPP and DW-link. I'm totally surprised, as I thought it was old tech.

Although, like you said, it seems like 4-bar bikes can ride/support very differently. I have no idea if the FM1001/2 bikes is the type of 4-bar bikes that pros like to ride. I think it is the type of 4-bar that climbs well in lower gears. If you want it to climb well, use a smaller front chainring.

veeTee1Pah

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #357 on: November 08, 2022, 01:54:40 PM »
Kinematic analysis and "corrections" to the geometry chart.
https://insanityofgravity.blogspot.com/2021/02/8-linkage-check-fly-bike-fm1156.html

Suggestion for shock
https://insanityofgravity.blogspot.com/2021/02/17-linkage-welch-art-von-luft-oder.html

Found these browsing the interweb so not my analysis. Not sure if this has been posted here already.
TLDR:
  • Pretty flat leverage curve.
  • Relatively low antisquat.
  • The blogger suggests Megneg shock
  • Geo chart isn't quite accurate.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2022, 01:59:37 PM by veeTee1Pah »

casual_build

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #358 on: November 08, 2022, 05:32:33 PM »
... Relatively low antisquat ...

The low anti-squat is kind of surprising, so the FM1002 is a more efficient climber?

Here is that linkage check:
https://insanityofgravity.blogspot.com/2020/11/6-linkage-check-carbon-rahmen-von.html


veeTee1Pah

Re: FM1001 / FM1156 - 135mm frame
« Reply #359 on: November 09, 2022, 12:12:15 AM »
I'm not sure you can claim 1002 is a better climber than 1001 from one number given all the variables involved, but the 1002 seems to have higher anti-squat numbers.