Just saw this in a video about this bike at China Cycle Expo 2025.



I'm curious whether the bike was indeed engineered by Nukeproof. If so, I imagine the new Belgian owners of Nukeproof wouldn't want them sold, but I can also imagine that Nukeproof owed Flybike/Carbonda a lot of money when they folded. Who knows what contractual obligation the manufacturer has at that point? I'd probably avoid such a complicated suspension if it was Chinese engineered.   

I read in another thread that you can purchase the older non-idler Nukeproof Giga or Mega from Carbonda.

Quote from: uberamd on May 29, 2025, 10:57:22 PM
I'm with you. Frame is alright, rides great, but it was a hassle and a half to get going.

Ex: I was never provided the linkage spacers with my frame, and obviously those are required. By the time I got them from the seller (6+ weeks after frame delivery) they sent me the wrong ones (they were sized incorrectly). So I 3d printed my own in ABS after figuring out what the dimensions should be. Those 3d printed spacers are working fantasticly but still, that shouldn't be required to make this frame work.
...
Overall, pretty good frame but when you factor in the price (especially now with tariffs) there are used name brand options that are competitively priced and don't have these annoyances.

Ubermd, I agree 100%. A lot of people on these forums are really asking the same question: "Can I get a bike that works like a name brand frame for a fraction of the price?" For full suspension bikes at the moment, I think the answer is "Probably not!" Let's put it this way: A mainstream publication would probably give a bike like this a poor review. There's a big gap between the refinement of this open mold frame and name brand bikes.

My guess is that there isn't a big mountain bike culture in China yet. Companies with a lot of manufacturing experience are designing and building mountain bikes from a CAD file without a lot of practical experience, testing, and feedback. That's how you get bikes with suspension that gets stuck a full compression and downtubes that won't clear fork crowns (not this bike but another on this forum).

My issues weren't exactly the same as yours, and I probably don't remember every quirk I dealt with, but I certainly spent hours dealing with weird flaws over many weeks. For example, I replaced a couple of plastic linkage spacers because the shape of the original ones caused friction. Santa Cruz VPP linkages don't have plastic spacers, and they have other design differences like a grease ports, dust covers, and between bearing spacers to mitigate lateral loads. My point is that most people aren't aware of details like this when considering an open mold frame purchase.

I also agree that you can have fun riding this bike! The geometry is decent, and that goes a long way to making the bike handle well enough for me despite the "unorthodox" leverage curve.

However, I wouldn't recommend a purchase like this for someone who just wants to buy a bike and ride it asap without faff. However, if you're a tinkerer who loves the challenge of a product with potential but flaws, this frame could be for you!

Quote from: Tom.Stevens.ADL on March 16, 2025, 05:59:55 AM
Has anyone had any issues with this frame so far other than the mentioned problem with certain sizes and the shock sticking?

Also, anyone mulleted it yet? I really like a 460-465 reach, if I get the large and mullet it, it'll come out at 460ish pretty nicely

I've mulleted mine, and the bottom bracket is a bit low even with a specialized 2.6 rear tire and 165mm cranks, and a 160mm fork but it's rideable. I haven't tried offset bushings or even shorter cranks, and that might help pedal strikes.

I know people will disagree with me, but I think the sum of the big and little issues with this frame make it a flawed product that's rideable if you spend time and energy troubleshooting.

The glaring issues are the suspension getting stuck when compressed (small and medium frames?) and the weird overly progressive leverage curve. With the shock spacer to prevent the stuck suspension and the overly progressive suspension, the bike feels like it has less travel than advertised. There are also smaller issues like less than ideal friction on a linkage,or under bb cable routing rubbing a groove in the carbon as suspension cycles. These are examples of the little issues you will have to deal with. I still have fun on mine. I've realized I'm not discerning or skilled enough for it to bother me too much. Still, given the price it takes to build up even an inexpensive frame and the depressed prices on new and used brand name bikes at the moment, I'd probably go a different route if I did it over again.

I'm replying a few months late, but maybe my experience will help someone. I have a BXT 117 (looks same as the Meinier you listed).  It has significant design, build, and ride quality compromises compared to a Santa Cruz Bronson. (I've ridden a Bronson 4.0.) You may be disappointed if you have such high expectations.

I'm still riding the BXT frame because it's fun enough, and I've realized I'm not discerning or talented enough to be a snob, but it's flawed. I suspect that's true with many open mold full suspension frames.

Quote from: Vortac on September 26, 2024, 02:19:20 PM
Interesting take, I'll definitely check the video out...

I didnt  take into account sag too much since I thought that could be adjusted by saddle height, but didn't consider new reach while  seated down at different saddle heights due to the Seat Angle...

Thx!

It's not just the seat tube angle that changes. Even standing, the "effective reach" changes as the suspension travels depending on the type of suspension. I was surprised that a reach difference of 40mm made the bikes feel similar.

I saw an interesting video of why you can't just replicate geometry numbers on a hard tail and full suspension and expect them to feel similar.


(Edit: Looks like my desktop browser doesn't embed the video well. Search "Are you riding the right size bike? | Bike Geometry Explained by Jeff Lenosky" if you can't see the embedded video.)

The youtuber, Jeff Lenosky, is a skilled biker and settled on a reach 40mm shorter on his hard tail for a similar feel to his full suspension bike after trial and error.

Geometry changes very differently through suspension travel on a hard tail versus a full suspension bike. Even at sag, the bikes with the same reach on the geometry charts have changed in different ways. On a full suspension, the "effective" reach shortens as the suspension squats. On a hard tail, the reach feels like it lengthens. Other geo numbers also probably change quite differently as the suspension squats.

There was more interest in inexpensive Chinese carbon frames during COVID when demand and prices for bikes were so high. Since the bike market crashed, and there are many more discounted new and used options, the cost / benefit ratio of these types of frames have dwindled or disappeared. If you realistically budget solid, proven parts, the savings over a currently discounted or used established brand are often modest at best.

Many people have unrealistic expectations about inexpensive Chinese carbon full suspension "all mountain" bike frames. For sure, they can be an adventure to assemble and fun to ride, but frustrating problems and surprises are probably more common than people expect. Fork crowns that hit the frame, suspension that gets stuck in the compressed position, or even rear triangles that can't be ridden as designed are examples. Consider what that says about the design and testing culture these frames come from. Unsurprisingly, kinematics and details like weather sealing are often inferior to name brands even when the frame is a "copy" of a well-known branded frame.

In my opinion, open mold, inexpensive Chinese frames are great for people who like a challenge and like solving problems. I don't think a 10kg 150/150mm all mountain bike is realistic.

I'd be skeptical of the kinematics of a Chinese designed high pivot given that Chinese engineers still seem to struggle to design good kinematics into more traditional designs like horst link. It seems to me that open mold manufacturers are catching up to modern geometry as evolution slows at the cutting edge, but suspension kinematics still often misses the mark on trail and enduro full suspension bikes.

I ordered a bunch of mountain bike parts on Aliexpress for a budget build including Shimano drivetrain parts. Most parts worked well, and almost all the shimano parts seemed genuine with a notable exception:

Losers

• A Mixed brand "dual color" CNC'd aluminum stem 45mm failed. Threads for the lower front plate bolts stripped while trying to tighten one day. Before that, the stem would slip easily on the steerer tube rotating out of place until I really torqued the bolts higher than spec. Though the stem looks cool, I suspect too much material is machined away for a reliable stem. Perhaps it wasn't heat treated correctly?
• Shimano Deore 12 speed chain was fake. Package was convincing. Fake chains seem rampant even on Amazon.
• Multi-tool that hides in the crank spindle attached with a magnet (All in multi tool copy). It's a cool idea but I lost it because the magnet wasn't powerful enough to keep it in place on rough terrain

Winners

• Genuine Shimano parts (except the fake chain) including Deore 4 piston brakes, SLX cranks and chainring, SLX cassette, Deore shifter + derailleur, bottom braket, clipless pedals
• Ztto dropper lever works as advertised
• Ztto "polished" shifter cables seemed smoother on the surface than other generic shifter cables.
• Foam tubing to quiet internal routed cables worked well. (Bicycle Frame Internal Line Housing Damper Bike Inner Line Sound Absorbing Tube 1.6M)
• CYCLAMI TPU Tubes are a lot lighter and and compact than traditional mtb tubes and don't cost much. Only used once in a friends flat, and it seemed to work.
• Mixed 5D carbon saddle has been reliable and comfortable so far
• A bunch of cycling tools ordered off alixepress worked fine for me.

NaeTech, this is an inspirational level of customization.  Very impressive!

A couple of questions:

• Your "washers" are similar to the part called "Pivot dust shield AL" on the Santa Cruz diagram, correct?
• Why do you want to use a 200mm shock when the frame is designed for a 210mm shock? Lower bottom bracket?

An update to the problem of stuck suspension on bottom out:

On my size Medium frame, a 210x52.5mm shock does not get stuck at bottom out while a 210mmx 55mm shock jams in the bottom out position. At least one person reported that a size Large does not get stuck at bottom out while naeTech reports size Small gets stuck at bottom out at 52mm of shock stroke. The limited sample so far suggests that the problem gets worse as frames get smaller below size Large, but that's not confirmed.

I would still suggest that anyone with the frame test their bike by bottoming out the rear suspension with at a low air pressure in the shock to make sure the suspension does not jam at bottom out. Since the suspension is so progressive, you may need to reduce the air pressure in the shock to reach full bottom but you should have at least a small amount of air pressure to see the problem.

daifanshi, seems like size Large may not get stuck at bottom out. That's good news for Large frame owners. I'd still suggest that owners test their frame just in case to prevent a potential dangerous situation on trail.

Quote from: naeTech on March 01, 2024, 08:59:29 PM
It seems to me that for such a progressive frame it is not particularly important whether it gives 135 or 150 strokes. This is more critical for linear frames. Branded bicycles also have bump stops and full travel can only be achieved in extreme conditions.

I just hope I'm able to use full travel on a bike with such a progressive leverage curve. As a light rider, I'm afraid the 135mm of travel will feel like 120mm. I will see in the springtime when I can test the bike.

Quote from: daifanshi on February 29, 2024, 11:04:34 PM
Maybe I'm not getting what this is for, but can't you just put two separate spacers on the outside of the bearings using the existing through bolt without redrilling the linkages?

daifanshi, naeTech is talking about a spacer between the outboard bearings that appears as a tube labeled "spacer" in the attached picture of the hightower v2 linkage. They bridge the inner races of the bearings accrding to naeTech's diagram. The hightower has them and the bxt doesn't. I experienced some binding and friction at low torques from these pivots. The spacers may help with this, but it looks like you have to modify the linkage and fabricate the spacers.

naeTech, did you add 2 spacers to the lower linkage as in the attached diagram?

While the BXT 117 may look like a hightower v2 copy, the kinematics, weird stuck suspension problem, and lack of linkage refinement like spacers suggest the copy isn't very good . The progression of the leverage curve is significantly greater on the BXT (some might say extreme)  if naeTech's model is accurate. I don't think you could call the kinematics the same.

All sizes of the hightower 2 accept a 55mm stroke shock, but the same stroke on the BXT 117 will cause suspension to jam at bottom out. As I understand, the 2020 hightower 2 had a 52.5mm stroke shock for "140mm" travel and the next year they shipped the same frame with 55mm of stroke for "145mm" travel in all sizes. I tested and jammed it with 55mm stroke and low air pressure on a size medium. naeTech says it happened at 52mm of stroke on size small.

If you revert to a 50mm stroke shock, the actual travel on this frame seems to be about 136mm, and the progressivity may make it difficult to use full travel. The takeaway is that the suspension travel falls short on this frame not because of marketing exaggeration but a defect that prevents you from using a 55mm stroke shock as designed. (Edit: This may happen only on some size frames. See reply #61 for more info)[/b]

If you have this frame, I suggest you try for yourself because it could be dangerous on the trail (although the high progressivity might make it difficult to reach the bottom out point). I believe you will need at least a bit of air pressure in the shock to get the suspension to jam. It's the extension pressure that cams the linkage into bottom out position.

naeTech, very impressive modification. Did you bore out the linkage to make the hole wider, and can you do this easily with a normal drill press?

I tried to free the stuck suspension at bottom out by sitting and bouncing on the bike, but it did not break free. Even if this method worked to free the stuck suspension, it would still be bad to have the linkage jam in the bottom out position on a big jump. Let me know if your experience is different.

naeTech has posted some great information about this frame. I built up a bike using this frame, but I haven't been able to ride it much due to snow season, but here are some quirks I've noticed so far.

• 
  The suspension gets stuck when the shock is bottomed out with a 210x55mm shock. (Edit: This may happen only on some size frames. See reply #61 for more info) The lower linkage rotates to the point where it gets cammed in the bottom out position, and the suspension won't extend. naeTech says this happened to him at 52mm, so the practical option is to use a 210x50mm shock for 136mm of travel according to his model. This bike is not a 150mm rear travel bike.


• According to naeTech's model, the leverage rate of the suspension has a 39.2% progressivity through 136mm of travel. This seems a bit extreme, and I couldn't find another example of a trail bike with similar travel and that much progression.


• I experienced excessive friction on the upper linkage / lower bolt at low torque. I tried some different washers that helped somewhat. In an mtbr thread, naeTech has found that a spacer that bridges the inner races of the bearing here on the hightower is missing from this frame. A custom spacer might help here. The linkages are not very refined. Many of the bolts experienced friction at torques much lower than SC hightower specs.

Some of the quirks might be addressed with some tinkering, but understand that you are getting 136mm travel with almost 40% progressivity with this frame. It seems like these numbers would be hard to change unless you are able to take some extreme measures like fabricating a new linkage. (Edit: Maybe not accurate for all sizes. See reply #61 for more info)[/b]

If anyone can think of a way to get closer to full 150mm travel and a less extreme leverage progressivity, I'd love to hear it!