See likes

See likes given/taken


Posts you liked

Pages: [1]
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
Quote from: ENEP on December 31, 2020, 02:41:21 AM
I've ridden my current bike with a 50 or 55mm stem and liked it alot.

Leaning towards a Large FM936. I think it will be long enough and also due to the shorter wheelbase for better/easier control on technical climbs.

Really afraid the XL will feel too long regarding reach and wheelbase.

Will do some calculations as you suggest.
You're 1cm taller than me, I really cannot see how an XL will be better than L. The L really long and you get 0 benefits from even longer wheelbase with the XL, only negatives since i think the fit will be better on L.  You are not sacrificing comfort, you are sacrificing performance. If you were 195-200, L would be sacrificing comfort for performance. That's my thoughts. :)  So i measure my inseam it's 86cm at 185cm and I love the Large, feels like a perfect size.
December 31, 2020, 05:11:18 AM 		1
Re: Ican S3 XC Frame
Quote from: jetpilot on June 10, 2021, 10:02:28 PM
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.


June 11, 2021, 01:30:36 AM 		1
Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
Quote from: jetpilot on June 10, 2021, 05:44:40 PM
Can someone that has experience riding the FM936 talk about the rear suspension a bit?
Is the anti-squat high?
Is an MM tune shock ok for it?
How does it compare to other bikes you have ridden of similar travel?
Thanks!
I moved from an Evil Following MB (120/130) to the 936.  Following was my first FS with modern geo. The 936 has a 42.5 shock which probably has around 115mm of travel with the flex stays with a 120 Sid on the front.

Following is an amazing bike, very lively and poppy and rarely upset. I never had a harsh bottom out, though it occasionally did. It felt like a light weight enduro bike on most everything but the rowdiest of descents, difference was speed compared to actual enduro. Never felt limited by the 120 mm rear. Climbed ok, but nothing special. Front end got light on steeper technical climbs. My GX build large MB weighed about 30 lbs.

I wanted something lighter and a better climber, but still capable on the downs. Was really interested in a Spur, but couldn't find one. Built up a 936 figuring if I don't like it, I'll swap out the frame for a Spur. My large built up to about 25 lbs without going complete weight wennie. The 936 feels much more lively, responsive and of course quicker. Strava time was about 5% quicker on the 936 the first time I rode it, quicker now.

If the Following was a mini enduro, the 936 is a maxi XC, trophy truck to rally car. The suspension isn't up to the DW Delta Link, but I didn't expect it to be. Baby heads are ok, but it doesn't tame the bigger stuff like the Following. On the climbs, it blows away the Following, actually climbing so well I got rid of my old hardtail. Suspension moves a little on climbs, but never feels like it's sucking energy. I've never touched the lockout.

Headed to Colorado next weekend and will run the 936 a little harder on extended descents that I rode the Following on for a better idea of how they compare, but doubt it will change any of the above much. I may even be surprised how well the 936 does.

Got to ride the updated Following with steeper STA and slightly slacker HTA. Bike buddy bought it because he loved riding mine. Definitely climbs better, but still wouldn't swap for the 936. Funny thing is now the same buddy wants to build a 936 to do marathon races on. He's a long retired semi-pro road racer and really likes how efficient my 936 feels FWIW. He's trying to decide between the 936 and 909.
June 11, 2021, 10:01:08 PM 		1
Re: Ican S3 XC Frame
Quote from: jetpilot on June 11, 2021, 11:06:02 PM
Awesome Julian!! I was hoping you would do that  ;)
Yes seems they are both good bikes then, the leverage ratio from Carbonda did seem a bit odd but I found it plausible given what I have seen been done in China ("designers" that dont even know how to use the thing they are making, happens in many products).
I actually prefer the FM936 as its lighter and that's kind of the whole point of this bike (I already have a 160mm bruiser), plus flex stays is the new thing right  :P
Can you post the antisquat curve at least for one of the flex points? ("further back" seems like a good middle ground) THANKS!

Sure thing :)

Absolutely true about the chinese frames sometimes having weird linkages... but yeah, the FM936 seems pretty fine.

The anti squat is actually not affected by the placement of that rear pivot point, but very much so by the center of gravity, and I honestly have no idea how to correctly estimate that. I've just kept it where the software suggested it to be.

Anyway, it's probably very similar - if not identical - to the NS Synonym, and the magazine reviews haven't reported any terrible ride characteristics.

So, here you go, anti suqat for 32t and 34t (the highest line is with 50t, the lowest with 10t).
June 12, 2021, 05:05:46 AM 		1