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 - InsaneDawe

Pages: [1] 2
1
Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components / Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« on: May 10, 2024, 01:19:08 PM »
Does anyone know what size the headset bearing are?

I know from Patrick that FSA no.69 will work but that has limited availability so I am looking at the Ritchey Logic-E but am not sure if I should order the ZS56/28.6, ZS55/28.6 or IS52/28.6?

2
Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components / Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« on: April 22, 2024, 10:39:15 PM »
Anyone measure how much clearance they have with a 32c tire? If this is gonna be my do it all frame, fitting a 35mm tire is essential for me.

3
Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components / Re: Carbonda FM1136
« on: April 22, 2024, 12:57:25 PM »
Anyone have a comparison between this and the "outgoing" CFR 1056?

I do like the improved aerodynamics but the "old" CFR1056 seems to have a more aggressive geometry with a seat angle of 73.5° & Head Angle of 73° compared to this new geometry. Comparing the "Large" frame size.

4
Road Bike Frames, Wheels & Components / Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« on: April 03, 2024, 12:50:51 PM »
Quote from: rga19071976@gmail.com on March 13, 2024, 05:35:54 PM
Good night

After 500 km with the bike, I can say that I am very satisfied.
I leave some photos of the final assembly

What size tires are you running?

5
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: August 01, 2022, 08:25:25 AM »
Random Update:

I've been using my FM936 setup 165x42.5 rear with 130mm Pike up front and it has been a amazing. Not the fastest but it has been more than capable for a lot of the riding I do. My fork is a 51mm offset and it feels very twitchy with 760mm bars, I imagine 4Xmm offset would suit the bike much better. I setup my Deluxe RT3 shock,off a giant anthem, quite soft and it bottoms out on jumps sometimes but I think with some air tokens I can get it just right. I am 5'11" and bought a large and it does feel a bit long but it is a nice race position vs the short reach position a lot of other bikes I've tried.

I took my bike down to Brown County State Park in Indiana this weekend. Took it down Hobbs Hollow "Jump" trail and it didn't snap. I was probably jumping 1-3 ft in the air and still casing some of the jumps. Normal 2300g layup for reference. I have full confidence in the durability of my frame

6
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: July 22, 2021, 07:49:36 AM »
Quote from: areid280 on July 21, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
just took delivery of a superlight FM936 (XL matt black)
It weighs in at around 2.15kg which I was a bit surprised at(though did have all spacers other than rear axel in place), has anyone else weighed their carbon frame?

My standard with a Deluxe RT3 weighed in at 2.584kG.

Quote from: areid280 on July 21, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
ALso this is the first time I have every ridden or built a FS bike, is there a standard bushing i need for the rear shock, I bought a rockshox monarch RT3 - 38.5x165

You should really read all of this thread to find details but I'll make it easy. You need a 22.2mm x 8mm for the top eyelet. Doesn't matter the brand.

7
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: July 21, 2021, 08:07:44 AM »
Quote from: adroitrider on July 20, 2021, 03:55:47 PM
Are you riding at Palos? I’ve put in 600 miles there so far. Pedal strikes are def common and I wish I’d gone with a shorter crank.

I cracked my seat stay on F Zone on that hunk of concrete that is on the b line of one of those drops.

Yeah Palos is my home track, I do all the "standard" trails, features and jumps often during the week as Cross Training. I've only ventured to the XX & XX Ext. a few times since building the bike.

The carryover 175mm cranks were less of an issue on my Cann. Trail(BB height of 308mm). Maybe I should upgrade to some sweet Raceface alloys or should I get a power meter? Decisions Decisions.

Not sure which trail is F Zone.

8
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: July 15, 2021, 09:12:29 PM »
Placed my order May 5th, frame was shipped June 15th, arrived at my door in Chicago, June 24th via DHL Express. Wing said they had BSA-L-Normal Weight frames in stock and that the painting took longer than expected.

Obviously I spent my entire weekend building up







Initial Impressions
-Cable guides are directional, one is larger for brake hose and one is smaller for cables
-Rear Linkage is carbon
-Bolt hardware is cheap feeling
-No Internal cable Guides
-Cutout at the bottom in the BSA 73 bottom bracket is a bit small
-No large removeable section at bottom of down tube
-Size feels good for me at 5'11"
-Oneup V2 150 can be slammed to the collar
-Some Pivots were dry, some werent
-Paint was chipping near some pivot surface
-Optional headset has good bearings but feels cheap and doesn't have seals, would probably work fine
-Cables can be routed under the shot but may cause brake bleeding problems
-Can't go full lock on Deluxe RT3 because lever hits the frame on lock position
-One chip at the front of the frame

Ride Impressions
-Reach is a little more aggressive than my trail but nothing uncomfortable
-Head angle is slacker than I was used to
-51mm Offset fork wasn't too quick steering
-Hasn't cracked on me yet (have taken it off some kickers, drops, some tech, maybe a crash or two)
-Have hit my cranks a couple times (175mm)
-No noticeable pedal bob, maybe after a long ride when the shock was hot
-Seat height feels fine
-Dropped seat is just right

Still messing around with my suspension settings. Shock is from a Giant Anthem and it feels good. Took a bunch of video during assembly and plan to do a build thread and a LoveMTB style video series.

9
29er / Re: Ican S3 XC Frame
« on: June 16, 2021, 03:02:54 PM »
Quote from: marcocpl on June 16, 2021, 10:07:18 AM
Damn, I just found some quality issues with my frame while I was wrapping protective films on it.
The carbon finishing near the CS Axle pivots looks pretty bad. I'm not sure if I should continue building with this CS.
You can see the CS Axle Pivot Right Side - Low is perfect but others aren't.

I've sent ICAN an email. Let's see how it goes..

Looks like normal unfinished carbon. Frame would cost a whole lot more if you wanted it to be finished perfect.

I'd send it.

10
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: June 16, 2021, 02:23:03 PM »
Yeah, I remember a while back someone put some force on his frame and found similar travel. Didn't have the time to find the post #. If I have time, I'll also try to measure actual travel on my 42.5mm shock. NS states the TR1 to have a 42.5mm shock & ~120mm travel.

11
29er / Re: Carbonda FM909
« on: May 25, 2021, 12:55:22 PM »
Quote from: zilcho on May 25, 2021, 10:36:44 AM
Carbonda has confirmed that NS does use a proprietary rear triangle, in addition to the NS rear triangle being visually different to the FM936 and any other company using the frame.

You are right, I do see the differences now. The Vitus is identical.

Quote from: zilcho on May 25, 2021, 10:36:44 AM
Also, NS uses a 38.5mm for the 100mm travel and 40mm for 120mm, in direct contrast to Carbonda's suggestion for 40=100 and end users with 42.5 getting ~110.

Site says 42.5 fox performance on the TR1. Nevertheless, I am now noticing the linkage is ever so slightly different which makes a big difference in travel.

12
29er / Re: Carbonda FM909
« on: May 25, 2021, 10:00:56 AM »
Quote from: okayestMTBer on May 15, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
I'm not real sure the FM936 is a 165x42.5 is 120. The site says 165x40 is 100mm. I think NS bikes uses a different rear end with the same front triangle. NS bikes has a 165x38.5 for their 100mm bike.

Quote from: Colt__Seavers on May 16, 2021, 01:23:43 AM
Use what Carbonda tells you to use!
With the FM936 people found out that a 165x42,5 fits and a 165x45 definitely don't! There is no such experience with 909.
By the way, the 42,5 over a 40mm won't give you 120mm instead of 100mm. More like 106mm.

I believe the NS does use the same rear triangle, there is some flex to the rear triangle you have to take into account and NS is probably doing what everyone else does. NS probably probably measured "About 112mm of travel?" and said "that's close enough to 120mm". There was one post in the FM936 thread where someone took their frame & 42.5mm shock and measured ~11Xmm of travel unscientifically. That's close enough.

At the end of the day, wait until you have the frame in hand okayestMTBer, you can then see if a 42.5/45mm will work. Or just slap a 40mm in there and call it good enough like the OEMs do.

13
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: May 05, 2021, 08:22:56 AM »
I may have caused some confusion, my current Trail in a M feels small, twitchy and etc. I've tried a lot of hacks to stretch it. My reason for buying a Chiner frame is that I like the hardware on the Trail but want a larger frame.

14
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: May 04, 2021, 11:18:19 PM »
Quote from: Julian on May 04, 2021, 11:26:34 AM
Do you mean 660mm from BB to the top of the saddle? Because if that's the case, it'll be tough to fit even just a 100mm dropper in there. So I'm guessing you mean 660mm to the saddle clamp?

Yes, 660mm to the saddle clamp.

Quote from: Bobelibobban on May 04, 2021, 09:27:27 AM
@InsaneDawe I run my seat at 735 mm and I just barely fit my 150mm PRO dropper. So at 660 mm I would say you probably won't fit a 150 dropper.

Which frame size do you have? Carbonda says 230 seat post clearance in a large. Somewhere in the 100+ pages in this thread, I saw someone mention they were able to fix the full stem of a 150mm dropper.

The OneUp V2 has an short stack height compared to other droppers. When doing the math, 490mm ST - 230mm Stem Clearance = 260mm to the dropper bottom + 420mm Total Dropper Length(@150mm) = 680ish. I can shim down 20mm of travel and I'm also betting I could squeeze the cable actuator bellow the pivot as one person reported, putting the collar at the top of the seat tube. I'll report back.

Quote from: Palmi on May 04, 2021, 01:59:12 PM
InsaneDawe,

Top tube length is no more a critical data in geo charts anymore.
In this frame the effective TT will be shorter then on a progressive, older geometry bike because of the much steeper seat tube angle.

The size L frame have a 490mm ST length which is ridiculously long for your height, especially if you really want to build a down country bike with a usable dropped length and enjoy the downhills.

With size M you'll get 6cm longer front center and 50mm longer wheelbase then your basic hardtail have. This mean more stability.

This is a XC bike, not a hard core trail/ enduro bike, you don't need 500mm reach. 475 will feel also really long after the cannondale.

What wfl3 said. I currently have a 70mm stem and my seat 20mm back on my Trail two to increase my "real top tube length" and it feels "okay" for pedaling. Moving my seat back to 0mm and running a 40mm stem will give me back, 50mm or more.

Reach is a vertical measurement for when I'm up and out of the seat and that 490mm reach will give "confidence".

Again, further research into similar NS, Vitus etc. and other comparable bikes, that large is about right for my size. Keep in mind that this frame is known for it's "progressive" geometry, more of a comfy marathon XC bike rather than a traditional all out sprint XC bike.


Yes the ST length is just plain wrong, it could be a shorter than it is. FM909 would probably be a better fit but again, I have a 31.6mm dropper.

15
29er / Re: Carbonda fm936 Thoughts
« on: May 03, 2021, 08:46:40 PM »
Quote from: InsaneDawe on May 03, 2021, 02:11:37 PM
Another sizing question ::)

I am 5'10.5" (179cm) tall, 78cm inseam and like everyone else, stuck between a Medium or Large. Most people my size go with a Medium. I'm currently on a Medium - 19 Cannondale Trail Two and it's small. Reach is 425mm & Top Tube is 610mm. My goal is more of a "downcountry" build, 120-130mm of travel, max travel in the rear, 760mm bar, 30-45mm stem.

The Medium FM936 has 475mm ;D reach but the Top Tube is 612mm :o and I plan on using a 120mm(~526mm) fork vs 100mm(502mm) suggested shortening my reach to ~465mm.

Comparing to other similar bikes in their suggested sizes for my height, I should target 480mm reach and a top tube of 630mm. The Large has 20mm more reach and a 640mm top tube :o.

Leaning towards a large for more of a stable bike rather than a shorter fast bike like my current trail.

After doing some more research on a very similar NS bike, Large is correct. This frame is meant to have larger than average reach and top tube, it's the goal of the original designer. Sticking to a size large.

Quote from: wfl3 on May 03, 2021, 03:46:09 PM
InsaneDawe, 

Have you considered the FM909?  Looks like you're built similar to me, shorter inseam with longish reach.  The only reason I didn't go large on the FM936 was because of the seat tube length on that size, but the large FM909 looks like it has a shorter seat tube - still the same slack geo as the FM936 tho.

Haven't looked at it, first glance, don't want a 30.9 seatpost simply for the reason that 95% of my components will transfer over from my Trail and that would require me to buy a new dropper.

The seatpost length on the FM936 does have me concerned. I run my seat at 660mm from the BB. 490 will require me to reduce my OneUp 150 travel.

I would also want to look for reviews of bikes with similar geometry and suspension setup to the FM909 while I'm confident in the FM936 geo.

Pages: [1] 2