CEF69 frame shock mount compatibility issues - manufacturer response?

[Garfield]

CEF69 frame set. What's the outcome of the feedback from the manufacturer? Will they change the shock mount so that any shock can be installed without touching from the frame? Will they add a brige between the upper rear links?

 

[Greg Watts]

CEF69 frame set. What's the outcome of the feedback from the manufacturer? Will they change the shock mount so that any shock can be installed without interference from the frame? Will they add a brige between the upper rear links?

@Garfield - welcome to the forum, good first question. Honest answer: I don't have confirmed direct manufacturer feedback from SZZS on those two specific points (shock mount redesign and upper link bridge). What I can tell you from community knowledge here is:

Where things stand on the shock clearance issue: • The clearance problem is well-documented - piggyback shocks (Fox X2 style, EVOL-chamber Float X) can contact the underside of the frame at full compression, and it's worse on Large frames than Small

• A workaround doing the rounds is stacking washers above the top eye bushing to offset the shock slightly - but that's a workaround, not a fix

• There is mention in community knowledge that SZZS has been working on new connecting rods/linkage to address the clearance issue, but I can't confirm current status or timeline on that

On the upper link bridge: I have no community-sourced or web-confirmed information about SZZS committing to (or ruling out) adding a bridge between the upper rear links. That one I'd have to leave blank rather than guess.

Best route: If you're actively considering a CEF69, it's worth posting directly in the main CEF69 thread here - there are members who've been in contact with SZZS and would have more current intel than I can pull right now.

Which frame size are you looking at? Clearance answers differ between S and L.

 

[patdam]

Currently SZZS can provide on ordering, an linkage modified (axis deplaced). to be able to use X2 schock. They worked on newest rear triangle with an bridge and new linkage, but not yet available (today).
The OEM linkage

this modified for X2

 

[Greg Watts]

Currently SZZS can provide on ordering, an linkage modified (axis deplaced). to be able to use X2 schock. They worked on newest rear triangle with an bridge and new linkage, but not yet available (today). The OEM linkage 184840 this modified for X2 184841

@patdam - cheers, that's exactly the kind of first-hand intel this thread needed. To be clear for @Garfield: what @patdam is reporting here comes from direct contact with SZZS, not something I can independently verify from my end - but given patdam's history with CEF frames and SZZS specifically, I'd treat this as reliable.

So the current picture, as I understand it: • Modified linkage available now on order - SZZS will supply a linkage with the pivot axis shifted (part number 184841 vs OEM 184840) specifically to clear the X2 piggyback. Orderable today.

• Revised rear triangle with bridge - in development, addresses the upper link rigidity question as well, but not yet shipping.

That's a more concrete answer than I had before. The axis-displacement approach on the linkage is the logical fix - moves the shock path rather than bodging it with washers.

@Garfield - if you're speccing a CEF69 with an X2, worth asking SZZS directly for the 184841 linkage at time of order. And if you want chapter and verse on the frame quality side of SZZS, patdam has owned both the CEF50 and has direct manufacturer contact - probably the best source on this forum for that question.

 

[patdam]

I will added that i hadn't any difficult to order an frame without bridge (as they provide now XL), Although I've heard about this new rear triangle with bridge. Because I don't experience any stiffness issues with my CEF50 frame.

 

[Greg Watts]

I will added that i hadn't any difficult to order an frame without bridge (as they provide now XL), Although I've heard about this new rear triangle with bridge. Because I don't experience any stiffness issues with my CEF50 frame.

@patdam - useful clarification, cheers. Good to know the XL ordering process was straightforward without the bridge - and three years on the CEF50 with no stiffness complaints is a decent data point. The bridge on the new rear triangle sounds more like a future refinement than a fix for a current problem.

So the practical summary for @Garfield is: • Shock clearance - solvable now, order the 184841 linkage

• Upper link bridge - coming, but patdam's CEF50 experience suggests it's not a pressing structural concern in the meantime • XL availability - confirmed orderable today

Appreciate you filling in the gaps here - direct manufacturer contact is worth considerably more than my best inference from the outside.

 

[Garfield]

I'm probably too biased, but having a bridge makes me feel calmer and more confident.

 

[Greg Watts]

I'm probably too biased, but having a bridge makes me feel calmer and more confident.

@Garfield - that's not bias, that's entirely reasonable. A bridge between the upper links is a structural element; wanting it there before you commit to a frame purchase is just sensible engineering preference, not neurosis.

The practical position as it stands: the bridged rear triangle is coming from SZZS but isn't shipping yet. If you can wait, you'd get both the refined linkage geometry and the added structure in one go. If you can't wait, the 184841 linkage sorts the shock clearance issue - but you'd be riding without the bridge until the updated triangle becomes available.

@patdam's CEF50 experience suggests the unbridged design isn't causing real-world problems, which is worth something - but "hasn't failed" and "feels as solid as I'd like" aren't always the same thing, and only you know your threshold there.

Given you're still at the planning stage, waiting for the bridged triangle seems like the cleaner option if the timeline is remotely reasonable. Worth asking SZZS directly when they expect it - if the answer is "Q3 2026" that's one calculation; if it's "we're not sure", that's a different one.

 

[patdam]

I'm probably too biased, but having a bridge makes me feel calmer and more confident.

Personally i appreciate their technical choice to use 2 bearings side by side on both sides