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 - apctjb

Pages: [1]
1
29er / Top picks for relaxed geometry lightweight hardtail Trail
« on: July 12, 2022, 02:41:53 PM »
Its been a couple of years since I built my last "Chinertown" carbon bike,  have not kept up with recent frames and looking for suggestions of frames to consider.

I am looking to build a pair of hardtails (for my wife and I) for trail/all mountain riding. Wishlist includes lightweight frame (<1200g), relaxed geometry (66-68 degrees) and able to run 2.4 to 2.6" tires (29 or 27.5) 120mm front shock.

What should I take a look at?

Thanks

2
29er / Re: Recommendations for lightweight Full suspension XC/Trail frame
« on: May 17, 2021, 11:07:43 AM »
Quote
Greatly appreciate the replies!

So are the FM-909 and FM-936 basically the same frame geometry, just different weights, or am I missing some other aspects that makes these frames different?

Geo looks the same.   936 is a rocker link vs the swing link of the 909, so the 909 has 2 bottle mounts in the front triangle.  Looks like the 909 has shorter seat tubes than the same size 936 as well.  909 has mounts for a chain retention device.  Seat tube diameter is diff too.

Thanks! I don't know enough to understand the tradeoffs between rocker vs swing (other than room for 2 water bottles). If there is a link to a good explanation would like to learn.

3
29er / Re: Recommendations for lightweight Full suspension XC/Trail frame
« on: May 09, 2021, 10:00:35 AM »
Greatly appreciate the replies!

So are the FM-909 and FM-936 basically the same frame geometry, just different weights, or am I missing some other aspects that makes these frames different?

4
29er / Re: Recommendations for lightweight Full suspension XC/Trail frame
« on: May 08, 2021, 09:06:59 AM »
Thanks for the recommendations!

Doing some quick research seems like these frames have fairly aggressive (relative to peers) stack-reach and seat tube angle.

Its all relative but curious to hear from people who have ridden these frames feel how bent over they are compared to other bikes and any knee problems from the steep seat tube angle?

Looking to avoid numb hands and sore knees!!

 


5
29er / Recommendations for lightweight Full suspension XC/Trail frame
« on: May 07, 2021, 05:34:22 PM »
Starting in on my 4th carbon frame bike build, but its been a couple of years since my last build and have not been following what new and getting good reviews.

I am looking for a lightweight (<2000g) full suspension bike for trail riding. Don't need a lot of travel, 120mm front fork is what I had in mind.  Slacker geometry would be preferable.

Bottom line I am looking to build a forgiving, all round bike, that comes in a couple lbs. lighter than my current full suspension bike (Specialized S-Works Stumpjumper). 29 or 27.5,  standard or plus frames,  all okay.

Would appreciate suggestions regarding frames I should consider.


6
29er / Re: Feedback on the Velobuild VB-M-095??
« on: March 20, 2018, 08:41:40 AM »
I tried the frame with 2.4 tires; plenty of clearance. If I find a deal on some 2.6" going to give them a try although that might be pushing clearance to bare minimum.

7
29er / Re: Feedback on the Velobuild VB-M-095??
« on: March 19, 2018, 09:47:36 AM »
Quote
What about the BB? Velobuild claims it is a PF30

The one I got is PF30. I am setting mine up with XT 1x11 so using a PF30 to Shimano BB.

8
29er / Re: Feedback on the Velobuild VB-M-095??
« on: March 18, 2018, 04:32:12 PM »
Seat clamp is beefy with large contact area. Interesting aside it appears that with the internal seat clamp  you could use either 30.9 or 31.6 seat post as the mechanism can take up the slack when using a 30.9


9
29er / Re: Feedback on the Velobuild VB-M-095??
« on: March 17, 2018, 09:26:49 PM »
Quote
claimed weight 1000gr

I ordered the Velobuild 095 in size L -19". Came in this week. Measured 1004g on my scale, impressive for a MTB frame. Fit and finish look good. Ordering up components now, will post photos of completed bike...

10
29+ & 27+ / Re: Ordered a CS 496...
« on: February 26, 2018, 09:11:27 AM »
Quote
@apctjb, what height is your wife?

Also, what's the biggest chainring this frame can handle?

5'-7",  Not sure on max chainring. The chainstay comes in about 7" above the bottom bracket with gives tons of clearance for chainring. The limiting factor might be when running 3" tires; which would reduce max chainring diameter to ~8". Still huge.

Note, even though I am running boost wheels I did not bother with a boost crank. Chain alignment is fine, shifting precise and I can back pedal when in largest rear cog (46t) and the chain does not drop down.

11
29+ & 27+ / Re: Ordered a CS 496...
« on: February 25, 2018, 03:53:39 PM »
Quote
I want to get one of these frames, but the short front-center measurement has me confused if I should go 17.5 or 18.5 for my 5'10" height.

At 5-10 you could go either way. My wife's is a 17.5 and it feels a tad short in the cockpit for me at 5-11, but she has a 40mm stem. With a longer stem it could work fine.  I am ordering a 18.5 for me.

12
29+ & 27+ / Re: Ordered a CS 496...
« on: February 22, 2018, 07:18:28 PM »
Nice build;

I just finished a similar bike; went with the Velobuild version of the frame (looks basically the same), XT 1 x 11 groupset, rockshox Reba fork, Farsport carbon wheels with 40mm rims, 2.6" tires, KS Integra dropper seat.  Just about 10kgs total build. I had hoped for lighter but the frame came in at 1500g rather than the advertised 1100g.

Only had it out for a couple of rides but loving it so far , the slack head angle (67.5) gives a lot of confidence on the descents, yet it climbs really well.  This one was for my wife and considering building another for me.

Did you know what your frame weighed in at?



13
29er / Re: Feedback on the Velobuild VB-M-095??
« on: February 21, 2018, 04:03:23 PM »
Quote
Do care if the rear is 148x12 Boost? If that works, I would go with the XMCarbon CS-496. Otherwise, check out the Workswell 062. Yes it's 71 HA with a 497mm fork (based off the 90mm that Specialized uses) but most 100mm forks are 506 or 507. I have a RS Sid 120mm on mine and it's roughly 69.5 for the head angle. And with the relatively short 430mm chain stays and long 620mm top tube (18.5"), it's super fun to ride. It's not really in the "trail" segment, but it's still plenty fun ride.

The CS-496 looks very similar to the velobuild 27.5+ plus frame that I just finished. Its boost, and with the asymmetrical chainstay can fit up to 3" tires. I put 2.6" tires on 40mm rims and 120mm Reba shock and your right, it is a ton of fun to ride.  Problem is the frame weighed in at 1500g in size 17. If I could find this frame at 1200g then that is clearly the way I would go, but hoping for something fun to ride but lighter.

Cound not find the Workswell 063 online.

14
29er / Re: Feedback on the Velobuild VB-M-095??
« on: February 21, 2018, 08:39:46 AM »
Quote
Here a frame that looks identical to the vb-095:

https://it.aliexpress.com/item/2018-NEW-T1000-29er-Carbon-mtb-Frame-UD-Mountain-bike-Frame-29-UD-PF30-Matt-Glossy/32847677694.html?spm=a2g0y.10010108.1000016.1.37cc4917fkA1wk&isOrigTitle=true

Yes, looks like the same frame. Do you have first hand experience with internal seat clamp or just don't like the idea? I have never had one but have ridden with people (road bikes) that do.

15
29er / Feedback on the Velobuild VB-M-095??
« on: February 20, 2018, 07:50:50 PM »
Have recently built up two bikes; one using a Workswell 093 road frame and the other Velobuild 27.5+ MTB fat tire frame.

Looking to build another hard tail MTB, and looking for the light frame, slacker geometry and can accommodate >2.3" tires. Considering the Velobuild 095, and looking for any feedback others might have had with this frame or suggestion for another.

Weight is a big consideration as I am shooting for <20lb build.

 


Pages: [1]