I got the detailed prints from Katie at Carbonda for both L and XL if anyone is curious to dig more into those (only saw the detail print for the S size earlier in the thread).

I'm 185cm tall with a 84cm inseam (without shoes on), 188cm/87cm (with shoes) and I'm trying to decide between L and XL. My hardtail that fits like a glove is a 2022 Honzo ST L, FC is 794, reach is 475, stack is 648. FM1001 in L seems really similar in these measurements according to the print, but still hesitant based on most here saying the FM1001 is ~1/2 size small. Any insights from y'all?

I have an size L and I am 179/84cm. Size L would probably be a very nimble bike for you, but I don’t think XL would be bad either. Maybe XL would be more comfortable when sitting down? I run a 50mm stem, tried a 35mm but it was a bit short for my liking.

I don’t know if this helps, but I would probably go with XL for your size.

I was considering XL but chose L and I am happy I did, it fits me really good.

I had the opposite problem on my fm1001, I couldn’t get the fork/stem tight enough to work without play. It was touching the frame, not much but enough even with both shims with the carbonda bearingset. I tried to fill the upper bearing cup with very slim tape. It worked but felt like a cheap solution. I solved it by sanding of maybe half a millimetre from the upper part of the headtube.

Now it is perfect. Still I always put loads of  marine grease on the bearings to at least prevent some of the moist getting in. It has been running for over a year without problems.

Freda,

I have the frame and I think it pedals VERY well. This is my second full-suspension bike (the first being a 2017 Diamondback Release) and the two frames are night and day, with the Carbonda FM1003 being the much superior climber (and descender). I believe there is one other forum member (Zooky, I believe) who rides this frame but as I recall, he thought it climbed as well as his hardtail. I'm pretty darn happy with it. Also, someone had paint issues with their frame in the past. Mine is holding up quite nicely and the CFR707 frame is too. Cheers!

Yes that is what I asked for and wanted to hear! Real world testing, because even if the number are interesting it is still very theoretical and cannot compare to actual riding. Thank you!

Compared to hardtails I would say any decent full-suspension climb better.  Much more traction in most situations. Maybe xc competitors might have a different opinion but I am usually not in hurry!

That’s odd, maybe you weren’t accounting for the way the shock driving linkage behaves? Take a look at the Sherpa video that shows the linkage movement, it isn’t as simple as it looks when it’s just sitting there (a dual stage movement, instead of a single arc).

Last time I saw a kinematic graph for it from Carbonda, everything looked good except the anti-rise is a bit low so braking forces can interfere with suspension movement a little more than is ideal. Not a huge problem. Anti-squat looked fine, and the couple of owners who are out there so far seem to have reported great pedaling performance.

Actually I came quite close to those values, must have been lucky!

Still compared to many other bikes it is very low, at sag already under 100% in most gears. Other bikes like canyon torque, Rocky Mountain slayer, Kavenz vhp, commencal meta and similar have much higher values.

I would say anti-rise is high, maybe not significantly but still much higher then earlier mentioned bikes.

This is still only a single-pivot, even if it is linkage driven. Maybe could have had main pivot more forward like orange bikes to get higher anti-squat.

Still an interesting option even if price is same or higher then big brand aluminium frame.

So I have been doing much more downhill then I intended lately on this bike because my enduro/bikepark bike project is seriously late.
With the 160 fork it is so capable, however on normal trails, climbing and easy riding I would strongly recommend the 140 fork. Still as a light all round bike this is great, especially since you have the fm1002 as option for more travel/slacker but more or less same kinematics.

Is this even available anymore? It is not on carbonda or flybike site anymore..

I going to the bike park soon so I decided to try a 160mm fork on this. It feels good while going downhill, but on normal trails the riding position is just too far back. This is also setup as mullet. The fm1002 is probably much better for more downhill oriented riding.
I did some measuring from photo and it seems with the mullet setup one loose one degree of head- and seattube angle and an additional degree with the 20mm longer fork. It is not exact of course but seems reasonable.

Any thoughts about a 185x55 shock vs a 185x50mm shock? I think it's 120mm vs 135mm rear travel. I'm currently enjoying the bike with 120mm rear suspension but I can't help thinking if I'd prefer 135mm...

Well like I have said before, it depends what you are using the bike for. I believe the suspension on this frame is so good that you don’t loose much effectiveness with 135mm travel, so for trail riding I like 135mm travel. But if you mainly ride very easy and smooth trail there is no need for more then 120mm. Then again if 120mm is enough I would go with a lighter frame like the Carbonda fm936.

Also with 135mm you can even use 130-150mm fork, but with 120mm rear travel maybe 130-140mm would be better.