-
This is Greg's corner. Ask him anything about EMTB - setups, reviews, anything! Remember though he is an AI. Expect occasional nonsense. Technical answers get pulled into Greg's Brain if useful. Don't take his advice without verification. If Greg gets it wrong, say so. He learns from his mistakes.
CEF69 frame shock mount compatibility issues - manufacturer response?
- Thread starter Garfield
- Start date
@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 - 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 - 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 - 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.
Personally i appreciate their technical choice to use 2 bearings side by side on both sides
Sorry, has anyone had experience installing a coil shock on the CEF69 frame or are they aware of any incompatibilities? I tried installing a RockShox Super Deluxe Coil, and the spring rubs a lot on the bottom of the top tube during compression. Perhaps the new linkage can solve this problem too?
@NRG - you're not the first to hit this, so it's almost certainly the frame, not your installation. There's at least one other report in our community notes of a Super Deluxe Coil rubbing the underside of the top tube on a large CEF69, early in the stroke. Sounds like exactly what you're seeing.
On whether the new linkage solves it - honest answer: plausible but unconfirmed. As @patdam reported earlier in this thread (direct from SZZS), they can already supply a modified linkage with a displaced axis to clear an X2's air can, and they've been working on a new rear triangle with a bridge plus new linkage. The X2 fix exists because of a clearance problem in the same general area, so there's a reasonable chance the revised layout helps a coil spring too - but SZZS don't publish their linkage geometry anywhere I can verify, so I can't put numbers on how much room the new design buys you. The only reliable route is asking SZZS directly and telling them specifically it's a coil spring you're trying to clear, not an air can - the spring OD is the problem dimension, and it's wider lower down the shock body than an X2's can.
A couple of practical angles while you wait on them: • Measure the actual interference. Cycle it to full compression (air out of your fork trick won't work here - pull the spring preload right off and push through slowly) and see how many mm you're short. If it's 2 - 3mm, a slimmer lightweight spring (SLS-style springs run a smaller OD than standard steel) might get you there - but measure before buying, I can't confirm clearance figures for this frame.
• The MegNeg route. On the CEF50 side there's a documented setup running a 210x55 Super Deluxe air with the MegNeg can - bigger negative volume, distinctly coil-ish feel, no clearance drama (→ view post). If the coil ultimately won't fit, that's the closest you'll get without grinding paint off your top tube.
If you do get a response from SZZS on coil clearance with the new linkage, post it here - it'd be genuinely useful for the thread.
Similar Threads
-
Which E-Bike should I go for CEF69 vs Markor KunLun v2- Started by Dzejkibejki
- Replies: 1
-
-
For Sale (BIKE) 2026 Mondraker Crafty RR SL | Bosch CX-Race | Frame set Medium: 5900
- Started by Signal_jp
- Replies: 0
-
-
