Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try looking into used stuff, just figured there isn't much in the XS/S range, new or used. Her mom is 5'3" and I think she has a M specialized frame that's fairly old with 26" wheels, which was an attempt to get her to ride with me a long time ago but never really caught on.

I wonder what height 29" wheels would start to work ok? If a frame is designed for them I would think strength would matter more than height if there is adequate standover? I actually have a really nice set of Chris King wheels that I built right before I got really sick, but they are for rim brakes and not disc. Probably not easy to find a mtb frame with brake bosses these days.

I guess I'll have to do some more research since I'll also have to find a decent front fork that will work.

Thanks and any more suggestions would be great!

It's hard to say and more pics would have helped. Looks to me like the carbon didn't get pushed tight up against the mold and the empty space filled in with (tinted?) resin and the carbon is likely 1 or 2 mm down.

Is that the seat tube? Carbon is extremely strong and stronger than it needs to be in most places. I'd bet it's perfectly fine even if a layer of carbon were removed (though the other layers should be right behind it). You documented it with the company if something were to happen and from what I've read I'd expect Carbonda to take care of any problem.

Maybe try taking a hot air blow dryer and heat up the frame stickers and see if that will let you squeeze the air bubbles out and stretch around any curves so it lays flatter. You can also take a needle and poke a small hole in any bubbles you can't get rid of so you can squeeze out any air.

Good luck!

If you paid PayPal with a credit card, most offer buyer protection just for these types of situations, and usually don't have strict deadlines. Might be worth looking into for those that used one.

How old is he? Bet he is excited if he likes bikes. How do you like the wireless shifting?

I'm trying to stay positive but that's pretty hard at this point.

Has anyone asked about a refund? Just about ready to walk away from all this...

Maybe they did fix the QA issue on the upper link and triangle connection.  Also possible that they made layup adjustments on the "standard" triangle for small improvements.

This new rear triangle may just be an upgrade for the hard charging and/or 200lb/90kg+ riders where the standard triangle can't manage the lateral forces.

I don't know, I'm not trying to justify it because most of you know I have one the flexes beyond what I think is optimal.  Are we the vocal minority?

Yes, people getting frames right now don't have the beefier design but does it move around like it is barely attached?  If you have a wheel and seatpost to throw on and to test that would be interesting to see.

Email says in production and finished in mid January, to me that says starting in April and maybe shipped by June.  Add another month for paint.  I'd like to be wrong on the timeline and get one before spring.

If the bearings are still pressed in from the inside with no way to retain them,, and there are 2 bolts, one on each side, then there is still a design flaw even if lateral flex is reduced.

It doesn't seem like as many people are having shifting problems, but the derailleur hanger is built outside of Sram's 12 speed design specs. For some it may shift ok now, but I have to think it could be better if within specs. And what will happen once things start to wear? I don't know, but I do know mine doesn't shift worth a....hoot, and no combination of adjustments will make it any better.

I gave the frame a chance and would love it if it worked as intended, but I will not be spending any more money on it when I still don't know if I will have a rideable bike.

Different cranks use different axle sizes and different BB attach to the frame differently depending on the standard which also specifies the BB outside diameter. So a normal PF92 BB has a 24mm axle and will work with any Shimano crank or that has a 24mm axle. There are other standards that are bigger and take a bigger axle which is usually stiffer. There are some aftermarket companies that make a BB for a certain standard but that accepts a bigger axle. The only problem is there is less room for the bearings so they have to be thinner and are normally less durable.

The ZTTO thread together BB for PF92 is wider than a normal one which would probably be an issue with a standard crank with a 52mm chainline. But a Boost crank with a 55mm chainline has an axle that is slightly longer and is what I used. With a Shimano crank, they specify to use a spacer on each side of the frame and this made the axle not long enough so I removed one spacer on the drive side which placed the crank as close to the frame as I would want and about perfect. The other side fit on the splines as intended and worked well for the AM831 frame. The crank uses one less spacer which with the extra bb width, moved the crank in roughly 1.5-2 mm VS the non drive side but I don't think anyone would be able to feel this. It also moved the crank as close to the frame as I would be comfortable with which gives it the best chainline possible which is also good. For reference, a 32T chainring has 4 or 5 mm of clearance with the frame at the tip of the teeth which is normally the closest point. However, the Shimano rings have a screw or rivet head that attaches the ring to a permanent spider which only has about 1.5mm of clearance but is closer to the BB and I think will be fine with any normal flexing. An aftermarket ring that's all one piece would give more clearance where the tips of the teeth would be the closest point.

Anyways, sorry for rambling but I dealt with this exact setup. Also, there are obviously other issues with the frame and I would advise anyone to wait until it's updated. I've only been able to ride mine around the yard and has sat in a work stand for over a month. In addition to the bad upper link design, the derailleur hanger is outside of Sram specs for 12 speed. Mine won't shift anywhere near acceptable but it sounds like most are OK with the shifting but I have to think it would be better with a correctly designed hanger. A few others have mentioned shifting problems but the other problems are getting all the attention and I don't think anything is going to be done about the hanger. I emailed Eddy over 2 months ago with pictures and the Sram technical documents showing how it's out of spec and he said it was sent to the "engineers" and every time I ask he hasn't heard of anything. I really want to like the bike but even with an updated rear end, it's just art if it won't shift correctly. I'm probably going to order a Carbonda FM1002 and maybe one day all the issues will get worked out of this frame, but now I'm really rambling...