If the clearance between seat stay bridge and seat tube are the same at bottom out, when comparing normal linkage with 165x40 to new linkage with 165x45, then the amount the rear wheel gets pushed down is the difference in travel.  I guess we don't really know what that is.  Let's say the original setup is 105mm (not sure if the actual travel has been settled) and new linkage setup is 120mm.  Then the rear wheel will get pushed down 15mm.  This will not be true if the position of the rear triangle sinks further into the travel on the new linkage setup (as if the clearance between seat stay bridge and seat tube was more similar to original linkage and 165x42.5mm shock), or if the travel achieved isn't actually 120mm.  Since the rear triangle isn't changing, there's no way the rear wheel is only pushing 3mm downward, that would mean 3mm of travel gain, assuming similar bottom out clearance.

Bottom bracket location makes no difference to how the angles change.  What if you put the BB in the middle of the fork axle, like a kids tricycle?  If you extended the rear wheel downward, the bike would still change by the same angle.  When extending the fork, the bike pivots around the rear axle.  When changing the linkage and pushing the rear wheel down, the bike pivots around the front axle.  Vertical wheel location change and wheelbase are all the matter.  BB location only matters for BB height change.  If we trust Carbonda's geo charts, then what I said is true.  40mm/old-linkage = 67/77deg.  Use a geo calculator for 120mm fork with 40mm/old-linkage = 66/76deg (1 deg change to 120mm fork).  45mm/new-linkage and 120mm fork (from Carbonda chart) = 67/77deg.  This if we trust their chart, original linkage to new linkage is a 1deg frame angle change.  Thus you can interpret that new linkage with 100m fork would be 1deg the other way, 68/78.

This is very helpful and, as far as I understand it, correct. BB height change is not causing the angle changes. But it is worth noting that raising the front (longer fork) and pressing down the rear (with the 120 linkage) BOTH raise the BB. Hence the 10mm higher BB height in the Carbonda diagram, which is likely an underestimate in how much the BB drop changes given that they do the calculation with a 520 fork.

I've installed the new linkage and cut out my shock spacer (to make it 45mm), hence I now have it setup in the new 120/120 mode. I notice the slightly steeper HA compared to the 100/120 I was running before, but I also notice the higher BB (it feels like I'm riding more on the bike that in it). So,  I'm wondering if there would be clearance to use one offset bushing and reverse a small part of the work of the linkage change. Maybe carbonda went too far in pushing the rear end down. If it is possible to run the 45mm shock but with a little less extending out the rear end that might be ideal. So, I'm toying with the idea of ordering a 2mm offset bushing and seeing what happens. I'll report back if I do that (although it might take a while).

The shock is not misaligned, from a rotational perspective.  I checked the trunnion spacers, they were set.  When I get a chance I will repress the bearings, maybe they put them in offset, but they seem fully pressed in because the shock has a super tight fit between the trunnion mounts.

The annoying thing is that the frame is shipped with a plastic bar between the shock mounts.  When that bar is installed it is clearly shifted to the side and any type of QA on this frame would have picked it up.

My guess, it appears that there is something wrong with the trunnion mount area, either the frame mold is misaligned or there is something wrong with the bearing faces not being even.

That sucks, sorry. It would be surprising if the mould is misaligned, given that others haven’t had this issue. I hope carbonda sort it for you.

Thanks both of you! I was aware that other 165 shocks are all the same. I just wasn't sure if the proprietary nude changed something that effected that or what size the spacers were. Thanks for all the info!

I think I will go down the same route as you ilyamaksimov. I too would like a little more sensitivity at the beginning. I'm also intrigued by the reduced travel traction mode.

actually I got it the other day and installed it. Haven't traveled yet. From a home test it is clear that the initial sensitivity of the damper is higher and the final progression too. In general, the way the digressive and linear work of shock absorbers is drawn on the graphs is the same feeling from the test at home.

traction mode is softer than fox

difference in air spring progression in open mode and traction mode is about 30%

cable pull 15 mm, need twinloc remote

real stroke 38 mm

in details, the shock absorber feels simpler and cheaper than fox)

That is really helpful, thanks. If the real stroke on this one is 38mm, do you think you could have got away with a 165x45 one? Also, do you have any idea if the 165x40 one you have can be extended later to 165x42.5 (like other shocks) or if something about the nude set up means that is not possible? I like the idea of the nude shock but don't want to give up too much travel for it.

Also, let us know how you get one once you get to ride the bike with the new shock!

everything is fine with it, but I want remote lockout and there is a desire to change the digressive damper to a linear

Oddly, I'm thinking of doing the exact same thing for the same reason...

If you do it let me know how it goes!

My extra FSA spacers showed up. Now its a bit too stacked gonna have to cut the steerer a bit. But the carbonda and FSA spacers play nice together so thats good. The FSA are nice cause you cant see the area they connect from the side they look much cleaner on the bike.

Looks great. Is that the carbonda bar stem?

It's completely sold out now I think.

It should fit with the ACR conversion kit that they offer on the ACR Fsa headset.

Thanks! I've been in contact with farsports and am happy to wait. But they aren't sure which spacer kit I should take. Did you mean an ACR conversion kit that farspoorts offer? As I don't see one listed. Is it maybe the vision one? I wasn't sure as the image looks quite different. Or did you mean that FSA offer a conversion kit?

I'll send a PM