SZZS specific CEF50-main thread (initial builds and troubleshooting related only)

[gido]

At 6foot 3inches (191cm), my xl fits pretty good. I have scope to lengthen my effective reach by dropping my stem (lowering the stack) and using higher rise bars. Currently, my bars have a 27mm rise and I'm running 15mm worth of spacers underneath my 40mm stem.
My 200mm Brand X dropper is ran slammed and I can get maximum leg extension.
Its funny now that I think about it, usually my preferred dropper is one up 210. However, I wasn't able to run it slammed for my long legs. It would have been raised by about 10mm out of the seat tube. A 240mm one up was a bit too long (even after swimming it to 220mm). But the seatpost's collar (in conjunction with the 200mm post of the brand x ascend dropper), seemed spot on in terms of length and drop.
I've left my saddle in a neutral position

 

[gido]

thank you for the quick and comprehensive answer. I also want an dropper post of 200mm or more, I don't have long legs for my height, I hope the oneup 210mm will be ok.

 

[patdam]

The motor can be heard, I'll gladly say that. It's not the loudest motor I've come across. But I've yet to have cracked the M820 open. 9/10, the noise is usually because of the grease used -v- the rpm of the main reduction gear. But the noise the motor gives off in peak output isn't off-putting in my opinion

hi neeko. Thanks for the interesting return. i read you have 160 front and 29" front rear. can you share your BB height (crank arms axel to ground) ? i'm would to see if i can use 150 front and rear 27.5

 

[temon10]

hi neeko. Thanks for the interesting return. i read you have 160 front and 29" front rear. can you share your BB height (crank arms axel to ground) ? i'm would to see if i can use 150 front and rear 27.5

I use Fox 36 150 29" front and 27.5" rear using 165mm cranks never get pedal strike. BB height 32mm

 

[patdam]

I use Fox 36 150 29" front and 27.5" rear using 165mm cranks never get pedal strike. BB height 32mm

thanks. pity, 320 will be to short for my use (i accept at less 340 with 160 cranks). I will need to find an other solution

 

[Neeko DeVinchi]

hi neeko. Thanks for the interesting return. i read you have 160 front and 29" front rear. can you share your BB height (crank arms axel to ground) ? i'm would to see if i can use 150 front and rear 27.5

BB height as a 150/160 29er is 350mm with a BB drop of 20mm.
Overall wheelbase for my XL is 1312mm with a 44mm ofset Fox36

 

[TCFlowClyde]

A better looking, lighter, sleeker CEF50?

Just tossing the idea out there on two fronts for the next version of the CEF50... STEALTH! That is, being e-incognito, or in ninja-mode, with a lower profile like a Trek Fuel Ex or Santa Cruz Hecker SL in order to better access all mtb trails.

Side note. I know the soft tea kettle whistle is noticable in higher/boost power modes, but it's very tolerable given the higher motor torque benefit. The 75Nm on a smaller drive unit may be the natural consequence/tradeoff that can't easily be engineered out? Maybe a future version of the M820 can address the noise by Bafang?

Firstly, I perceived the "stealth-need" as being more of a North American issue, so maybe Canadians and USers might have the greatest perspective and chime in.

Maybe in 5 years this won't be an issue of Class 1 (no throttle, max 20 mph) trail usage as our region will give full mtb access?Or due to US Forest service bureaucratic entrenchment in particular, maybe never?

Secondly, in the mean time, since the Forestal Siryon utilizes the M820 chassis and looks pretty stealthy, it's possible to consider the future CEF50 or CEF51 looking trimmer too...

So, the Siryon has a smaller down tube and battery. Similarly, the LCE930 has lower profile downtube while using the M820 and smaller battery. Thus, the future CEF50 down tube could be slimmer too, and hence, maybe make a 520 Wh battery in the process?

The Siryon does a nice job of hiding the M820 in its motor mount area. In contrast, the LCE930 has similar, bulkier mounting design to the CEF50, and losses it's stealth a little unfortunately.

Consequently, if the next version CEF50/51 made a smaller, slimmer battery (I'm stuck on a 520Wh with the carbon-casing upgrade), the down tube could be sleeker, and the carbon encased battery weight dropped another 3 lbs...that's significant. (IMHO)

Then if ZSSZ could trim the motor mount out like the sleekness of the Forestal Cyron...and boom, more stealth, and a lighter overall bike.

I think these two updates, the slimmer downtube and trimmer motor mount would give the CEF50 an overall aesthetic boost and lighter too (thanks to the smaller battery and carbon-casing).

So, even if stealth isn't as important to you, a better looking E-mtb can always be a good thing. Personally, I'm impressed with the cosmetics of the newish Transition Relay...if the next CEF50/51 could shed it's lower belly like the Relay (but with a bigger battery and definitely more powerful motor), then wow!

 

[patdam]

A better looking, lighter, sleeker CEF50?

Just tossing the idea out there on two fronts for the next version of the CEF50... STEALTH! That is, being e-incognito, or in ninja-mode, with a lower profile like a Trek Fuel Ex or Santa Cruz Hecker SL in order to better access all mtb trails.

Side note. I know the soft tea kettle whistle is noticable in higher/boost power modes, but it's very tolerable given the higher motor torque benefit. The 75Nm on a smaller drive unit may be the natural consequence/tradeoff that can't easily be engineered out? Maybe a future version of the M820 can address the noise by Bafang?

Firstly, I perceived the "stealth-need" as being more of a North American issue, so maybe Canadians and USers might have the greatest perspective and chime in.

Maybe in 5 years this won't be an issue of Class 1 (no throttle, max 20 mph) trail usage as our region will give full mtb access?Or due to US Forest service bureaucratic entrenchment in particular, maybe never?

Secondly, in the mean time, since the Forestal Siryon utilizes the M820 chassis and looks pretty stealthy, it's possible to consider the future CEF50 or CEF51 looking trimmer too...

So, the Siryon has a smaller down tube and battery. Similarly, the LCE930 has lower profile downtube while using the M820 and smaller battery. Thus, the future CEF50 down tube could be slimmer too, and hence, maybe make a 520 Wh battery in the process?

The Siryon does a nice job of hiding the M820 in its motor mount area. In contrast, the LCE930 has similar, bulkier mounting design to the CEF50, and losses it's stealth a little unfortunately.

Consequently, if the next version CEF50/51 made a smaller, slimmer battery (I'm stuck on a 520Wh with the carbon-casing upgrade), the down tube could be sleeker, and the carbon encased battery weight dropped another 3 lbs...that's significant. (IMHO)

Then if ZSSZ could trim the motor mount out like the sleekness of the Forestal Cyron...and boom, more stealth, and a lighter overall bike.

I think these two updates, the slimmer downtube and trimmer motor mount would give the CEF50 an overall aesthetic boost and lighter too (thanks to the smaller battery and carbon-casing).

So, even if stealth isn't as important to you, a better looking E-mtb can always be a good thing. Personally, I'm impressed with the cosmetics of newish Transition Relay...if the next CEF50/51 could shed it's lower belly like the Relay (but with a bigger battery and definitely more powerful motor), then wow!

Personally i have not the same opinion, More "stealth" for me would mean more complicated control/repair, less motor cooling. I'm mostly hope more work on the weight repartition (battery/motor), most close from the gravity center. less integration to easly maintain. flip chip on rear suspension to personalize geometrie.

 

[mike_kelly]

The US Forest Service can come around. It is unfortunately, or fortunately, in the hands of the local administrator. I was looking at the forests in Northwest New Mexico and the called the local office, all their trails are open to class 1. I could not believe it. Many trails are open in the San Juan district. But I admit that in some districts, due to local personality, the status may never change. But there is progress.

 

[spokémon]

flip chip on rear suspension to personalize geometrie

when someone posted they are redesigning for coil shock, I contacted Linda to try to convince them to implement a flip chip (since they were messing around the same area) but I think I failed

Just an observation, I'm a bit surprised so many people running/want to run 27.5 rear
And while we're dreaming, a shorter chainstay option for 27.5 or smaller frames would be nice. maybe 445mm?

 

[TCFlowClyde]

when someone posted they are redesigning for coil shock, I contacted Linda to try to convince them to implement a flip chip (since they were messing around the same area) but I think I failed

Just an observation, I'm a bit surprised so many people running/want to run 27.5 rear
And while we're dreaming, a shorter chainstay option for 27.5 or smaller frames would be nice. maybe 445mm?

Yeah, I'm good with updating for a coil and even a flip-chip. The Transition Relay has them and the Stealth too!

Just emulate the Relay in this regard and the next CEF50 version will accomplish both form and functional upgrades.

 

[patdam]

when someone posted they are redesigning for coil shock, I contacted Linda to try to convince them to implement a flip chip (since they were messing around the same area) but I think I failed

Just an observation, I'm a bit surprised so many people running/want to run 27.5 rear
And while we're dreaming, a shorter chainstay option for 27.5 or smaller frames would be nice. maybe 445mm?

29" front for me is mandatory, the difference with 27.5 is feeled a lot regarding confiance and in technical tracks . Rear i don't feel improvement (to same chainstay length). I prefer 27.5 is more light and strong. Of course if chainstay shortened in line with 27.5, could provide more maniability (and les stability), but complicated for the manufactrer for few customers needs. I think that flip chip (or various possibility to fix schocks) who allow to modified angles (and few chainstay/wheel base) could be more easy and interesting more the purchasers

 

[calvintys]

when someone posted they are redesigning for coil shock, I contacted Linda to try to convince them to implement a flip chip (since they were messing around the same area) but I think I failed

Just an observation, I'm a bit surprised so many people running/want to run 27.5 rear
And while we're dreaming, a shorter chainstay option for 27.5 or smaller frames would be nice. maybe 445mm?

The new mold frame its almost ready, production should be somewhere this week which is competible with coil shock BUT flip chip they cant do it, i try to convince them for it too. Initial during design stage, they had it but scrape in middle.

 

[Neeko DeVinchi]

when someone posted they are redesigning for coil shock, I contacted Linda to try to convince them to implement a flip chip (since they were messing around the same area) but I think I failed

Just an observation, I'm a bit surprised so many people running/want to run 27.5 rear
And while we're dreaming, a shorter chainstay option for 27.5 or smaller frames would be nice. maybe 445mm?

Personally, I think they should have implemented a trunion style rear shock linkage instead of the metric 210mm eye to eye linkage shock design. They could have killed two birds with one stone and increased the rear wheel travel, whilst keeping the geometry near identical with a 205x65 trunion shock.
The bike is put together decently. But considering it can run a 1.8 tapered fork like a Zeb or Domain, most builders would interpret this frame as being aggressively mannered for terrain associated for long travel emtbs.
On top of that, the M820 with a 43v battery Is seriously kicking out some power in the higher levels of assist. I would even go so far as to say that this system could double as a full fat emtb system (which does make me wonder whether the CEF50 technically is a full fat emtb but lighter than other full fats).

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Personally, I think they should have implemented a trunion style rear shock linkage instead of the metric 210mm eye to eye linkage shock design. They could have killed two birds with one stone and increased the rear wheel travel, whilst keeping the geometry near identical with a 205x65 trunion shock.
The bike is put together decently. But considering it can run a 1.8 tapered fork like a Zeb or Domain, most builders would interpret this frame as being aggressively mannered for terrain associated for long travel emtbs.
On top of that, the M820 with a 43v battery Is seriously kicking out some power in the higher levels of assist. I would even go so far as to say that this system could double as a full fat emtb system (which does make me wonder whether the CEF50 technically is a full fat emtb but lighter than other full fats).

A trunnion works for me.

Instead of mid-powered (aka 1/2-powered), I've been referring to it "3/4 powered"...I know, I know doesn't work for everyone.

Just glad to have the bigger torque, and the longer range with the smaller weight.

Now that V.2 coiled-CEF50 will be out soon...Make V.3 trimmer, so I can called the "poor man's Transition Relay" but more powerful and with longer range.

Seriously, SZZS streamline the frame profile a tad! And become the SL DIY King!

 

[MI Rida]

A better looking, lighter, sleeker CEF50?

Just tossing the idea out there on two fronts for the next version of the CEF50... STEALTH! That is, being e-incognito, or in ninja-mode, with a lower profile like a Trek Fuel Ex or Santa Cruz Hecker SL in order to better access all mtb trails.

Side note. I know the soft tea kettle whistle is noticable in higher/boost power modes, but it's very tolerable given the higher motor torque benefit. The 75Nm on a smaller drive unit may be the natural consequence/tradeoff that can't easily be engineered out? Maybe a future version of the M820 can address the noise by Bafang?

Firstly, I perceived the "stealth-need" as being more of a North American issue, so maybe Canadians and USers might have the greatest perspective and chime in.

Maybe in 5 years this won't be an issue of Class 1 (no throttle, max 20 mph) trail usage as our region will give full mtb access?Or due to US Forest service bureaucratic entrenchment in particular, maybe never?

Secondly, in the mean time, since the Forestal Siryon utilizes the M820 chassis and looks pretty stealthy, it's possible to consider the future CEF50 or CEF51 looking trimmer too...

So, the Siryon has a smaller down tube and battery. Similarly, the LCE930 has lower profile downtube while using the M820 and smaller battery. Thus, the future CEF50 down tube could be slimmer too, and hence, maybe make a 520 Wh battery in the process?

The Siryon does a nice job of hiding the M820 in its motor mount area. In contrast, the LCE930 has similar, bulkier mounting design to the CEF50, and losses it's stealth a little unfortunately.

Consequently, if the next version CEF50/51 made a smaller, slimmer battery (I'm stuck on a 520Wh with the carbon-casing upgrade), the down tube could be sleeker, and the carbon encased battery weight dropped another 3 lbs...that's significant. (IMHO)

Then if ZSSZ could trim the motor mount out like the sleekness of the Forestal Cyron...and boom, more stealth, and a lighter overall bike.

I think these two updates, the slimmer downtube and trimmer motor mount would give the CEF50 an overall aesthetic boost and lighter too (thanks to the smaller battery and carbon-casing).

So, even if stealth isn't as important to you, a better looking E-mtb can always be a good thing. Personally, I'm impressed with the cosmetics of the newish Transition Relay...if the next CEF50/51 could shed it's lower belly like the Relay (but with a bigger battery and definitely more powerful motor), then wow!

I don't agree with the "make it stealthier so I can ride it anywhere" take. Slimmer for aesthetics, sure, but to sneak onto trails you're not suppose to have e-bikes on, that just sounds like a bad idea. I wouldn't be on a ebike if I have to "hide" it, just ride where it can be.

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Noted.
How do you like your CEF50 so far?

 

[patdam]

I don't agree with the "make it stealthier so I can ride it anywhere" take. Slimmer for aesthetics, sure, but to sneak onto trails you're not suppose to have e-bikes on, that just sounds like a bad idea. I wouldn't be on a ebike if I have to "hide" it, just ride where it can be.

US ebike owner have not the same facility than us (EU) to practice, a lot off MTB tracks are forbidden for EMTB in USA

 

[MI Rida]

US ebike owner have not the same facility than us (EU) to practice, a lot off MTB tracks are forbidden for EMTB in USA

I'm aware, I live in the US. Sneaking onto trails you're not suppose to be on is not a solution. If anything, that puts us further behind on getting things lightened up for the future.

 

[mike_kelly]

I'm aware, I live in the US. Sneaking onto trails you're not suppose to be on is not a solution. If anything, that puts us further behind on getting things lightened up for the future.

Unfortunately that only applies to people who sneak on trails. Those of us who don't get screwed and nothing changes. They can say no ebikes but not enforce it, it keeps the hikers and horse back riders happy, so only the people that obey the rules suffer.

 

[TCFlowClyde]

All valid points...stealth can be a little controversial unfortunately.

But it sounds like a newer CEF50 version, sleeker and lighter (520Wh battery w/carbon case) would be aesthetically appealing to many if not most...the stealth would just be a natural byproduct that may or may not be utilized...and thus minimizing future debate on access. If they don't know you're a class 1 E-mtb, then less angst all around?

BTW Michigan (and the Midwest in general) has some very verdant and awesome singletrack-summer-riding.

 

[spokémon]

All valid points...stealth can be a little controversial unfortunately.

But it sounds like a newer CEF50 version, sleeker and lighter (520Wh battery w/carbon case) would be aesthetically appealing to many if not most...the stealth would just be a natural byproduct that may or may not be utilized...and thus minimizing future debate on access. If they don't know you're a class 1 E-mtb, then less angst all around?

BTW Michigan (and the Midwest in general) has some very verdant and awesome singletrack-summer-riding.

Are we not concerned about the drop in battery capacity from 720Wh? I thought this was one of the major advantages of this design. small motor large battery.

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Are we not concerned about the drop in battery capacity from 720Wh? I thought this was one of the major advantages of this design. small motor large battery.

but gotta slim it down....usually means thinner battery configuration. But if it can accommodate 700+Wh carbon encased battery...bonus. And still shave off another lb/kg or two! I'd be down for that.

Ultimately, thinking some of that fancy high density, much lighter solid-state NASA batteries would do the trick! SABERS I think they're called.

Let's get it done NASA!

NASA’s incredible new solid-state battery pushes the boundaries of energy storage: ‘This could revolutionize air travel’

“We’re starting to approach this new frontier of battery research."

finance.yahoo.com

 

[spokémon]

The new mold frame its almost ready, production should be somewhere this week which is competible with coil shock BUT flip chip they cant do it, i try to convince them for it too. Initial during design stage, they had it but scrape in middle.

I feel the NEED to buy CEF50-v2
coil shock
UDH
carbon battery case

 

[TCFlowClyde]

CEF50-V 3 2024/25, sneaky-pete, slim-shady next please.

Someone's gotta plan ahead...

 

[brbr]

CEF50-V 3 2024/25, sneaky-pete, slim-shady next please.

Someone's gotta plan ahead...

View attachment 128077

It’s very nice, but I don’t imagine the câble management

 

[temon10]

All valid points...stealth can be a little controversial unfortunately.

But it sounds like a newer CEF50 version, sleeker and lighter (520Wh battery w/carbon case) would be aesthetically appealing to many if not most...the stealth would just be a natural byproduct that may or may not be utilized...and thus minimizing future debate on access. If they don't know you're a class 1 E-mtb, then less angst all around?

BTW Michigan (and the Midwest in general) has some very verdant and awesome singletrack-summer-riding.

Sleeker, Lighter, Trunnion shock, non internal cable routing headset will be perfect.

 

[clix]

Well, if I would have an option to chose between trunnion vs standard mount shock, I would go for standard mount.

Here is why:

 

[TCFlowClyde]

It’s very nice, but I don’t imagine the câble management

Yeah true would be tight but the Forestal engineers look like they got their cables figured out. I'm hoping more wireless droppers (that are much, much cheaper e.g. TransX dropper) go to market soon. Then with wireless shifting, only the rear brake cable is remaining to manage.

But I'm fine with external too... certainly more straight forward.

 

[brbr]

Yeah true would be tight but the Forestal engineers look like they got their cables figured out. I'm hoping more wireless droppers (that are much, much cheaper e.g. TransX dropper) go to market soon. Then with wireless shifting, only the rear brake cable is remaining to manage.

But I'm fine with external too... certainly more straight forward.

I hope wireless droppers will arrive soon at a decent cost! I do not have the time yet to work on the diy version I was planning