Lightcarbon carbon fiber EMTB frame with DJI Drive Unit

[TheKaiser]

Photo is from the Facebook Teewing group. 170/170 high pivot. Apparently not out till mid next year when the DJI motor update comes out.

That longer travel bike looks pretty sweet. Kind of a "poor man's Norco". Regarding the motor update that you mentioned, are you talking about the new cheaper/heavier motor from DJI/Amflow, or is there an update coming for the current lighter/pricier motor too? The only new/updated motor info I'd seen so far had to do with a cheaper/heavier model that was supposed to drop in January, and I got the impression it would not be a replacement for the current model, but would instead be an expansion of their offerings. Having said that, a lot is going on in the world these days, so I may have fallen behind in the news!

Asking because, as @curufinwe_wins just mentioned, a lot of the appeal of DJI bikes is the lower weight (even if it's just a couple pounds). I was hoping this 170mm bike wouldn't come with a big weight penalty vs. the original LC/Teewing bike, but if they're using the new cheaper/heavier DJI motor, then it starts to sound like it'll be a tank.

 

[xtraman122]

Tbh, the teewing frame is plenty burly enough, just put stronger components on it if you want to enduro.

Need more small travel bikes not the other direction.

I meant more in terms of travel and geo, not durability. I agree it looks to be sturdy enough, but the geo of the Turbo Force was definitely a Fuel/Amflow clone and squarely in the trail/all mountain category with the 150mm rear travel and head angle it had.

Slackening the front a bit in addition to a little more travel was what a lot of people were asking for and what I was intending with the burly description, able to handle burlier terrain.

 

[B Rabbit]

Tbh, the teewing frame is plenty burly enough, just put stronger components on it if you want to enduro.

Need more small travel bikes not the other direction.

Personally I’d say the exact opposite, we need more long travel DJI options

 

[xtraman122]

That longer travel bike looks pretty sweet. Kind of a "poor man's Norco". Regarding the motor update that you mentioned, are you talking about the new cheaper/heavier motor from DJI/Amflow, or is there an update coming for the current lighter/pricier motor too? The only new/updated motor info I'd seen so far had to do with a cheaper/heavier model that was supposed to drop in January, and I got the impression it would not be a replacement for the current model, but would instead be an expansion of their offerings. Having said that, a lot is going on in the world these days, so I may have fallen behind in the news!

There’s a rumored update/refresh to M1 as well. Probably to fix the rattle issue and maybe address some other concerns like the bash guard. There were some rumors of a battery refresh too, so it would probably coincide with that.

 

[B Rabbit]

I think there is a new more powerful DJI motor coming (130nm +300 grams) but also an updated M1.

 

[curufinwe_wins]

I meant more in terms of travel and geo, not durability. I agree it looks to be sturdy enough, but the geo of the Turbo Force was definitely a Fuel/Amflow clone and squarely in the trail/all mountain category with the 150mm rear travel and head angle it had.

Slackening the front a bit in addition to a little more travel was what a lot of people were asking for and what I was intending with the burly description, able to handle burlier terrain.

Put a 170mm fork on it and it will be 63 deg head angle anyways. Not really any different.

Not many years ago 150mm rear was enduro anyways. People dont actually need that much 99.99% of the time (most buyers literally dont have trails for it imo), and the push for more more more is silly IMO. But that is what the market wants, so it will absolutely be coming.

 

[TheKaiser]

Put a 170mm fork on it and it will be 63 deg head angle anyways. Not really any different.

Not many years ago 150mm rear was enduro anyways. People dont actually need that much 99.99% of the time (most buyers literally dont have trails for it imo), and the push for more more more is silly IMO. But that is what the market wants, so it will absolutely be coming.

Very true. I go back and forth on the travel thing.

On the one hand, pure travel weighs nearly nothing. We're talking about 25mm of extra stanchion tube, etc...so only a few ounces. In that regard, why wouldn't you want more travel? The weight penalty tends to come from the other accoutrements that companies spec out on longer travel bikes, like heavier tires, larger fork stanchions, bigger brakes, etc... which may or may not be necessary for your needs. There is the potential to have more travel, essentially for free, if you don't overspec the other components, giving you a little extra reserve for when you hit the big stuff.

On the other hand, there can be a sort of numbing effect from long travel bikes, which dumbs down the terrain and detracts from your enjoyment of the other 90+% of your riding. Pumping the bike on rollers or a series of berms doesn't seem to generate as much effect. In addition, even for Pro-level Enduro racing, which can get pretty buck-wild, we've seen many of the sponsored riders choosing the smaller bike from their sponsor. For example, we've seen Specialized pros riding the Stumpjumper Evo rather than the Enduro, and the same thing with Norco riders. So it seems like the additional travel may not just be a detriment to the "experience" of things, but also the actual clock speed. Of course, we're not riding at the pro level, so there's another argument to be made that our needs are different, but I digress.

Anyway, having ridden full suspension bikes ranging from softtails to 8" DH bikes, I'm personally open to more travel, assuming that there are not other compromises to geometry or weight that offset the benefit. If the frame and motor weight of these new LC/Teewing bikes is comparable in weight to the smaller one, I'd be very interested, but if its adding many pounds, then not so much.

 

[curufinwe_wins]

Very true. I go back and forth on the travel thing.

On the one hand, pure travel weighs nearly nothing. We're talking about 25mm of extra stanchion tube, etc...so only a few ounces. In that regard, why wouldn't you want more travel? The weight penalty tends to come from the other accoutrements that companies spec out on longer travel bikes, like heavier tires, larger fork stanchions, bigger brakes, etc... which may or may not be necessary for your needs. There is the potential to have more travel, essentially for free, if you don't overspec the other components, giving you a little extra reserve for when you hit the big stuff.

On the other hand, there can be a sort of numbing effect from long travel bikes, which dumbs down the terrain and detracts from your enjoyment of the other 90+% of your riding. Pumping the bike on rollers or a series of berms doesn't seem to generate as much effect. In addition, even for Pro-level Enduro racing, which can get pretty buck-wild, we've seen many of the sponsored riders choosing the smaller bike from their sponsor. For example, we've seen Specialized pros riding the Stumpjumper Evo rather than the Enduro, and the same thing with Norco riders. So it seems like the additional travel may not just be a detriment to the "experience" of things, but also the actual clock speed. Of course, we're not riding at the pro level, so there's another argument to be made that our needs are different, but I digress.

Anyway, having ridden full suspension bikes ranging from softtails to 8" DH bikes, I'm personally open to more travel, assuming that there are not other compromises to geometry or weight that offset the benefit. If the frame and motor weight of these new LC/Teewing bikes is comparable in weight to the smaller one, I'd be very interested, but if its adding many pounds, then not so much.

Honestly... the # 1 thing against extra travel to me (rear at least because front has real geo and weight differences) is that it requires your unsprung BB to rise exactly as much as the extra travel (assuming, as most intelligent designed bikes have, similar full compression ground clearance). Which then makes the bike more tedious to mount and dismount, **unless** the front triangle shrinks dramatically and waterbottle/storage clearance is dropped as a result.

You really end up playing a 3 way optimizer there, as well as the numbing effect you mention.