you probably need to narrow down the geometry that you are after, mainly head angle and seat angle. there's a fair range of geo across the options you have there. also is your main priority xc/endurance racing speed, above all else? from the description of your terrain (i dont know the area though), it sounds like 100mm travel would be enough. you also need to work out your preferences and must-haves. e.g. is bb92 ok? need boost spacing? dropper post compatibility required?
All fair questions to ask. XC is king here, but ultimately what I don't want to do is build a 100mm XC race rocket and hate riding it because it's too aggressive. Dropper and boost spacing are requirements. I'm less picky about BB (maybe I should be)? Though, my road bike has BB86 and I hate that it ticks with every pedal stroke.
i'm not sure if 67/77 angles on a short(ish) travel bike like that Carbonda FM936 would work that great for xc racing. who knows though, it might be way of the future.
The NS Bikes Synonym is based around this frame. RC is 100mm and TR is 120mm. Sounds fun from the reviews I've read/watched, but as you said this is some pretty out there geo.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/ns-bikes-synonym-tr1-review.htmlhttps://singletrackworld.com/2019/10/ns-synonym-first-ride-impressions/https://bikerumor.com/2019/08/30/2020-ns-synonym-carbon-mountain-bike-switches-up-rc-cross-country-to-tr-trail/you should also have a look at the scott spark rc copies. e.g. hongfu fm258, pro-mance (not sure of the model, if it is the 9007 or 7007?), and some other resellers i cant recall the name of. i have one of these (the earlier non-boost fm058 from hongfu) and i find it close to perfect for the racing i do on it - since i have been racing on it (since mid-2018), my results have improved significantly (some of that had to do with diet and fitness though). i am not sure if a 120mm fork is what the frame is aimed at (it is designed for 100mm fork), but i don't think the geo would be screwed up by an extra 20mm at the front - in fact, it would put it in the same ballpark as the frame you mentioned that you quite liked - probably around 68.5/73.5.
if i could do it again, i wouldve got the boost version of my frame, and would run a 34t chainring. i had some chainring clearance issues with a non-boost chainline, exacerbated by running an oval chainring - had issues even fitting a 32t. the anti squat on this frame is such that it pedals unbelievably well, and i run it with compression full open, no need for rear lockout, even stomping up hills - my climbing speed last year was such that i have been relegated to the top grade this year. check out the climbing speed on kerschbaumer at last year's world cups when he was riding one of these frames (his is branded torpado, but it is the same frame as the 258). having said all this, i think the frame is designed around a 34t chainring - i am finding the anti squat is a bit too much with a 32t, such that the suspension is too firm under power and not as active as i am used to (i have had a lot of horst link bikes over the years). i am really splitting hairs here though - i have no intentions to change anything on my bike.
Definitely considering this frame as well. Seems that Scott uses the same frame for both the 100mm and 120mm versions. Could be a good fit for around here.
Show Posts
