Hey everyone,
Just wanted to share a quick update—my frame arrived about two weeks ago! It's currently at the mechanic's shop. Honestly, I could have assembled most of it myself, but I lack the experience and the specific tools needed for cutting and bleeding hydraulic brake lines, so I left that part to the pro.

Details & Specs:
Paint: Gloss Raw Carbon (front) / White Pearl (rear)
Frame (Size S, w/ hardware): 1350g
Fork (w/ hardware): 540g
Seatpost (w/ clamp & rubber seal): 206g

QC issues found:
Overspray on the front face of the BB shell
A small ~1.7mm bump inside the headtube bearing seat

I'll share photos, a full specs list, and a final ride report once it's fully built!

In my case, it was a size S. My educated guess is that their production run priority usually goes M > L > S > XS/XL.

I'll admit I might have jumped the gun a bit—I wasn't fully aware of how PayPal disputes affect OEM manufacturers behind the scenes. In my defense, waiting itself isn't the issue; I don't mind a long lead time at all. What frustrated me was having the estimated date pushed back week by week. If they had told me upfront that it would take an extra 6 weeks, that wouldn't have been a problem.

Ultimately, it boils down to poor communication.

Looking back, my initial post was definitely written in the heat of the moment out of frustration with the repeated missed promises and communication breakdown. As a first-time buyer directly from China, the sudden shift to bank wire after a dispute felt like a major red flag.

However, taking a step back and reading through the experiences here, I realize that these logistics hurdles and payment friction points are somewhat part of the territory when dealing directly with Chinese factories. I hope it's not just survivorship bias—I see plenty of members here navigating these risks successfully, so I'm evaluating my next steps with a much cooler head.

Appreciate your perspective, but normalizing unprotected bank wires as "part of the game" sets a dangerous precedent for this community.

1. PayPal wasn't rejected from day one to "avoid transaction fees"—it was accepted and held for 6 weeks through multiple missed deadlines. It was only refunded and swapped for a wire transfer AFTER accountability was requested. That is not fee management; that is removing buyer protection when timelines fail.

2. "It worked for me" is classic survivorship bias. Just because previous buyers received their frames via wire doesn't mean requiring basic buyer protection for an $850 transaction is "unrealistic."

3. Low prices don't have to mean forfeiting consumer rights. Plenty of reputable DTC Chinese manufacturers (Carbonda, LightCarbon, TanTan, etc.) routinely accept protected payments via Credit Card, PayPal, or Alibaba Trade Assurance without forcing buyers into non-refundable wire transfers.

Everyone has their own risk tolerance, but calling basic buyer protection an "overly high expectation" only encourages vendors to shift 100% of the risk onto the customer. I'm documenting this so future buyers can make an informed choice about their own financial safety.

Thanks for your input, but I think you completely glossed over the main issue here:

1. Payment Security: Expecting buyer protection (PayPal G&S or Credit Card via Stripe) when paying $850+ to an overseas vendor is not "unrealistic expectations"—it is basic consumer protection. Unilaterally canceling PayPal and demanding an unrefundable Direct Bank Wire after 6 weeks of delays is a massive red flag, period.

2. Lead Times & Communication: There is a difference between "rushing" a builder and holding a supplier to their own promises. Promising ~18 days and then giving moving targets for 6 weeks ("ready in 4 days", "ready next Monday"), then stating on Saturday it will be ready Wednesday, only to suddenly pull out a "finished" frame on Monday morning isn't standard procedure—it's shifting goalposts.

3. QC: Nobody expects a sterile cleanroom or a high-end European paint job. However, expecting a freshly painted frame to not have chipped paint along the rear axle mount right out of the gate, and expecting to see the matching painted fork before sending money, is completely reasonable.

If you are comfortable sending unprotected bank wires for frames with visible paint chips and no proof of a matching fork, that's your choice. But documenting this for potential buyers who value buyer protection and clear timelines is precisely what this forum is for.

My gut feeling was right after all—something was definitely off. Sadly, this was my first experience with Chinese direct-to-consumer bike manufacturing, and it proved to be quite disappointing.
I've written up a detailed breakdown of what went down with Mondince (Jack Ding) here:

https://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,7621.0.html

Definitely a lesson learned.

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share my detailed experience with Mondince (Jack Ding) regarding my recent order for the new FM366 frame (Size S, custom paint). I hope this documented timeline helps potential buyers make an informed decision before ordering.

1. Timeline & Promised Lead Times
- Aug 7: Placed an order and paid in full via PayPal Goods & Services ($850 USD total) for an FM366 Size S (White Pearl + Gloss Raw UD Carbon). Estimated lead time given: ~18 days.
- Aug 25 – Sept 15: Repeated check-ins on progress. Each time, I was given shifting estimates: "painting this week", "ready next Monday", or "ready in 4 days".
- Sept 19: After 6 weeks of waiting and multiple missed deadlines, I sent a polite final notice stating I would need to open a PayPal dispute if a valid tracking number and QC preview video were not provided within 7 days.

2. Payment & Cancellation Flip-Flop
- Sept 19: Immediately upon mentioning a dispute deadline, Jack issued a full PayPal refund without consulting me. He stated that PayPal carries "huge risk" for them and demanded payment via Direct Bank Wire if I still wanted the frame.
- Sept 21: Jack emailed stating the frame was finished and sent a single low-resolution photo. I replied that I was still ready to complete the purchase provided there was buyer protection (either PayPal G&S or a direct Credit Card link via Stripe/Wise). Jack completely canceled the order in response.

3. Quality Control (QC) & Photo Red Flags
The single photo provided raised several serious concerns:
- Missing Fork: The frame was shown hanging alone; the matching painted fork was nowhere to be seen.
- Unfinished / Rough BB Shell: The bottom bracket shell was still taped up, with visible thick paint bleed and overspray edges around the lip.
- Chipped Paint at Rear Dropouts: Looking closely at the rear axle mount, the white paint was already jagged and chipped along the metal insert edge.
- Improper QC Environment: The frame was simply hanging in a messy storage area rather than being properly cleaned, prepped, and inspected in a dedicated QC setup.

Overall, the photo provided suggests a rushed, uninspected frame pulled directly from the paint rack rather than a finished, QC-passed product.

Summary / Takeaways for Buyers
If you are planning to pre-order or purchase from Mondince:
1. Lead Times: Be prepared for significantly longer lead times than quoted.
2. Payment Methods: Be aware that if delays occur and you request accountability, they may refuse PayPal and insist on unprotected Bank Wires.
3. Pre-Shipment Inspection: Inspect any photo/video preview very carefully before sending non-refundable funds.

(Attached photo sent by supplier for reference)

Could anyone share an update on their orders? Honestly, Mondince is starting to look more and more shady to me, as much as I hate to say it.

This is the third week in a row where I've emailed them only to get the exact same response: "We will have your frame ready by the end of the week."

I understand how manufacturing delays go, but this kind of communication is completely unacceptable. I'm going to give them one more week before I open a PayPal dispute/refund.

The frame looks great in that video, thanks for sharing! I'm hoping to get my "pre-shipping" video soon as well — mine was supposed to be sent out last week.

Looking at the specs, the geometry is actually surprisingly slack. That works perfectly for my setup, but it's pretty funny that it's marketed as an aero frame, which usually implies a much more aggressive, racey fit.

Edit: Just a quick heads-up from Jack for anyone interested: the downtube storage cover is 100% anodized aluminum. I was fully expecting plastic here, so it was a really pleasant surprise!

Quote from: clayp on August 23, 2026, 03:02:36 AM
Yes, that's what I was getting at. But if the cage blocked the handle, that would be bad too. I also ordered a size L. Hopefully this won't be an issue at that size.

Sorry to see it, but I pointed this out few pages ago. I belive it will be similar in all sizes.  This is a layout to accomodate "under-top-tube" bags, where you have just one bottle.

Quote from: anqry on August 07, 2026, 03:30:22 PM
Here is FM366 in size M with 2.25" tyres. Would probably fit 2.35" by the looks of it. I got photos today and Mondince confirmed it's a frame built on a "new" geo.
But am I being crazy or something about the frame looks off? It might be a visual illusion because of chimney worth of spacers, a paint choice, or just chunky tyres, but to me it looks short, tall and too front heavy.
It's most likely just me being too undecisive about the frameset I want, but I'd love to hear opinions from more established gravel enjoyers. 



Did some AI "editing". I guess it does look better with less spacers and in a different paint scheme?..



EDIT

It is NOT actually a new geo.

Have a look at how the handlebar "behaves" in this photo, it was done on x1 from the close distance, prefferably, you take photos of a bike from as far away as your optical zoom allows. This gives you a "flatter looking" bike.
In this case it looks like it is 500 or even 600 width handlebar.

I'll also add - I did a preorder, custom paint, lead time is 18 days. It's waiting time then.

They have their standard handlebar. It is delivered with spacers etc. I'm attaching data sheet provided by Jack.

I'd like to ask for advice - how paying to Mondince via PayPal looks?

I have to say, those "reviews" are a blight nowadays. Sadly, they are a bit off-putting – true.

I wanted to ask you about the fork. Do we have two options to pick from – with and without those black inserts? Also, can you tell me what those holes, covered by inserts, are actually for? They look different from the ones on the Open WIDE 2 fork.

I am ordering one too (Size S) and I wonder what the timeline looks like. Most of the parts are already at my place. We will see how it comes out. Progress will be uploaded for your viewing pleasure!

EDIT: One change - there suposed to be protectors like for 346 and they seem to be missing. 

Your line of thinking aligns perfectly with mine. Increasing the fork rake from 50 mm to 65 mm would drastically alter the bike's handling dynamics, completely deviating from the frame's intended design.
The reality is that toe overlap is mathematically inevitable for most size S road and gravel frames, especially when pushing into monster-gravel territory. To prove this, we have to analyze two distinct tire scenarios on a size S frame with a 600 mm front-center dimension (BB-to-axle, dimension "I") and a standard 170 mm crankset (like my Shimano GRX):

Case 1: NO-Clearance Setup (2.25" Tires)
Tire Diameter & Radius: A 2.25" tire has an approximate diameter of 740 mm, giving it a 370 mm radius.
Available Clearance: 600 mm (Front-Center) - 370 mm (Radius) - 170 mm (Crank) = 60 mm !
Result: This leaves exactly 60 mm of space from the pedal spindle (cleat center) to the tire.

Case 2: Full Monstrous Toe-overlap Setup (2.4" Tires)
Tire Diameter & Radius: A 2.4" tire bumps the diameter up to roughly 750 mm, or a 375 mm radius.
Available Clearance: 600 mm (Front-Center) - 375 mm (Radius) - 170 mm (Crank) = 55 mm
Result: This leaves only 55 mm of space from the pedal spindle to the tire.

Using my typical real-world setup: Shimano XC5 shoe (size EU42) paired with PD-M540 pedals—the distance from the cleat center to the tip of the shoe ranges between 88 mm and 108 mm, depending on cleat adjustment.Even in the most optimistic, hypothetical scenario—running the smaller 2.25" tire and slamming the cleat all the way forward (which is not recommended for proper bike fit)—we are still short by 28 mm (60 mm - 88 mm).To completely eliminate this 28 mm deficit by stretching the frame, you would have to increase the reach so much that the front-center (dimension "P") would enter L/XL sizing territory, rendering the frame entirely unrideable for a size S rider.

In my specific case, I run my cleats slammed all the way back, meaning I need 108 mm of clearance from the spindle to the shoe tip. The math leaves no room for compromise:
With 2.25" tires: I will experience a massive 48 mm toe overlap (60 mm - 108 mm). 
With 2.4" tires: The overlap increases to 53 mm (55 mm - 108 mm).

There is simply no escaping the physics here. While eliminating toe overlap is a great goal on paper, forcing it onto a size S frame designed for high-volume tires is mathematically impossible without fundamentally ruining the bike's proportions and handling. In this size category, massive toe overlap is a reality we probably just have to accept.

EDIT to prevent double posting.

OK, I had a look at some gravels for that bb-to-axle distance.

Grizl CF XS (pre 2024) - 595 mm
Grizl CF XS - 625 mm
Grail CF XS - 604 mm
Topstone 47 - 601 mm
Topstone 51 - 605 mm
Checkpoint 54 - 606 mm
Diverge 54 - 615 mm
Revolut S - 607 mm
Addict s/52 - 608 mm
Locally popular gravel AL S - 609 mm

Grizl is well known to be designed long and to be used with short stem.

Quote from: ains on June 25, 2026, 03:03:27 AM
It is better to ask them directly - https://www.mondincecycle.com/contact
Please let us know what they tell you

That was my plan, but I wanted to check here first. Sometimes someone already has the answer, which saves Jack from answering the same questions twice.
Going back to the information Jack shared about the headset setup:

"FM356 is standard FSA headset system. It is 52mm ID and 56mm OD."

Secondly, regarding the BB-to-front-axle distance increase and the potentially higher rake fork:

"We have changed the front wheel distance to 600mm for size S. And we may do a bigger rake fork. But we need customer's advice for this.
We did not know whether the 65mm rake good for this bike frame."

It looks like they went with the suggestions. I'm actually quite curious — how do they plan to gather customer feedback regarding that bigger rake fork? Has Mondince did somethig like that before?