Hybridizer Sann Bafang M500 series Aluminum FS

⚡ EMTB Pro Go Pro — Living Intelligence Reports, exclusive discounts & ad-free Up to 25% off Peaty's, PEMBREE, Magicshine & more · Ad-free browsing · Pro badge See the deals →
ATXZJ said:
Wish i could talk Hybridizer into machining a long travel linkage kit.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong about this, but given how much you can adjust the BB height via the flip chip, and there almost always is some extra leeway on top of that in both directions, before anything hits the frame (tire or linkage), I would be surprised if you couldn't overshock the SANN with a 230x65mm shock, when either using 2x2mm or 2x3mm offset bushings, to bring eye-to-eye (ETE) back to 226/224mm.

Feel free to correct my math, in case I am wrong:

Bottom-out-ETE (BETE) will be 155mm (210-55), for the standard shock configuration. If you had a 226/224mm ETE, the BETE would be 161/159mm. This is very close to the intended 155mm BETE.
Hybridizer claims 10mm of difference between the lowest and highest flip-chip setting. Going by Offsetbushings' claims of 10mm BB drop, when using two offset bushings (of 3mm each?), this would effectively mean that your BB raises by around 10mm, if overshocking the frame to 226/224x65mm. This could then be compensated again by setting the flip-chip to its lowest position.
You could then further lower the BB again, by running a 27.5mm wheel with the 29" dropouts. Presumably this should still clear, if you can live with the increased chain stay length. The changes in seat tube angle wouldn't be out of the range of sliding it a bit forward to compensate for it.

How this will effectively affect the curves for the suspension - I don't know!

Let me know if this is feasible, as I looked into the modifying the SANN rear triangle to become 197mm rear hub compatible, by cutting it apart in the middle, and welding it back to together. I think it is doable, but currently lack the resources to undertake such a risky venture.
 
El Topo said:
I may be wrong about this, but given how much you can adjust the BB height via the flip chip, and there almost always is some extra leeway on top of that in both directions, before anything hits the frame (tire or linkage), I would be surprised if you couldn't overshock the SANN with a 230x65mm shock, when either using 2x2mm or 2x3mm offset bushings, to bring eye-to-eye (ETE) back to 226/224mm.

Feel free to correct my math, in case I am wrong:

Bottom-out-ETE (BETE) will be 155mm (210-55), for the standard shock configuration. If you had a 226/224mm ETE, the BETE would be 161/159mm. This is very close to the intended 155mm BETE.
Hybridizer claims 10mm of difference between the lowest and highest flip-chip setting. Going by Offsetbushings' claims of 10mm BB drop, when using two offset bushings (of 3mm each?), this would effectively mean that your BB raises by around 10mm, if overshocking the frame to 226/224x65mm. This could then be compensated again by setting the flip-chip to its lowest position.
You could then further lower the BB again, by running a 27.5mm wheel with the 29" dropouts. Presumably this should still clear, if you can live with the increased chain stay length. The changes in seat tube angle wouldn't be out of the range of sliding it a bit forward to compensate for it.

How this will effectively affect the curves for the suspension - I don't know!

Let me know if this is feasible, as I looked into the modifying the SANN rear triangle to become 197mm rear hub compatible, by cutting it apart in the middle, and welding it back to together. I think it is doable, but currently lack the resources to undertake such a risky venture.
Click to expand...
Not a bad suggestion. My main concern would be how much it would alter suspension kinematics. Admittedly the BB is already a little too low as it stands. The mullet configuration is meant to run 27.5x2.8 and not the 2.5 I'm running. The bike is currently in the highest BB setting and still has a pretty low bb.

I'd love have some clarity from hybridizer on how much shock I could run and how much it'd throw off the kinematics. There's enough room out back to make a new link for a longer shock. I've reached out to them but not heard back. They probably think I'm crazy.

I'd like to buy a size large for myself and run 190-200mm boxxer up front with as much travel as I could squeeze out of the rear.

This bike would be solely for DH parks or where shuttles and lifts aren't available.
 
Disclaimer, I only have a very limited understanding of suspension kinematics, but if basic math still applies here, and I am not overlooking something obvious, this should hopefully be correct. Let's also call the 230x65mm shock (with offset bushings of either 2x2mm, or 2x3mm) a 225x65mm from now on, for the sake of simplicity.

ATXZJ said:
Not a bad suggestion. My main concern would be how much it would alter suspension kinematics.
Click to expand...
You're welcome! I mean, if you do the math again:

Your geometry, after the same sag, is almost unchanged when running the above shock configuration. Now let's assume you run the bike as a more DH-geared kind of bike, with more sag (than a 160mm Enduro.
This would mean your (admittedly not static) sag point is either at [210-(55*0.28)=194,6mm] or [225-(65*0.35)=202,25mm), this is not a lot difference in the mid-stroke.
Again, I could not judge how this might affect smaller and mid size bump suspension behaviour, anti-squat or such things. But I am sure many of you guys could interpret the curves in regards to that.


ATXZJ said:
The mullet configuration is meant to run 27.5x2.8 and not the 2.5 I'm running. The bike is currently in the highest BB setting and still has a pretty low bb.
Click to expand...
Then my example calculation works out even more in your favour, I guess. If you want a higher BB anyway, there is one less thing to worry about, when attempting such a conversion.

ATXZJ said:
I'd love have some clarity from hybridizer on how much shock I could run and how much it'd throw off the kinematics. There's enough room out back to make a new link for a longer shock. I've reached out to them but not heard back. They probably think I'm crazy.

I'd like to buy a size large for myself and run 190-200mm boxxer up front with as much travel as I could squeeze out of the rear.
Click to expand...
I doubt they would give you any concrete numbers. You should be able to do that math yourself with linkage software, maybe someone in the forums will be kind enough, to measure the points for the suspension for you. Or maybe Hybridizer will actually provide you with that data.
I am surprised you didn't get a reply, or that you are that crazy - there may or may not have been a guy asking for wider/modified rear triangle (for 197mm hubs) just very recently. ^^
I doubt they would fabricate another linkage, for the same reason they will not do a fat bike rear-triangle, the need to redo a lot of the engineering effort, while likely not being able to sell many of those units.
In your case it presumably very easy to modify the frame, you just put in another shock. In my case, the effort is at least a magnitude above that.

Regarding rear travel, with my above example you'd end up with 189mm of rear suspension. That doesn't seem to shabby, doesn't it?
 
El Topo said:
Disclaimer, I only have a very limited understanding of suspension kinematics, but if basic math still applies here, and I am not overlooking something obvious, this should hopefully be correct. Let's also call the 230x65mm shock (with offset bushings of either 2x2mm, or 2x3mm) a 225x65mm from now on, for the sake of simplicity.


You're welcome! I mean, if you do the math again:

Your geometry, after the same sag, is almost unchanged when running the above shock configuration. Now let's assume you run the bike as a more DH-geared kind of bike, with more sag (than a 160mm Enduro.
This would mean your (admittedly not static) sag point is either at [210-(55*0.28)=194,6mm] or [225-(65*0.35)=202,25mm), this is not a lot difference in the mid-stroke.
Again, I could not judge how this might affect smaller and mid size bump suspension behaviour, anti-squat or such things. But I am sure many of you guys could interpret the curves in regards to that.



Then my example calculation works out even more in your favour, I guess. If you want a higher BB anyway, there is one less thing to worry about, when attempting such a conversion.


I doubt they would give you any concrete numbers. You should be able to do that math yourself with linkage software, maybe someone in the forums will be kind enough, to measure the points for the suspension for you. Or maybe Hybridizer will actually provide you with that data.
I am surprised you didn't get a reply, or that you are that crazy - there may or may not have been a guy asking for wider/modified rear triangle (for 197mm hubs) just very recently. ^^
I doubt they would fabricate another linkage, for the same reason they will not do a fat bike rear-triangle, the need to redo a lot of the engineering effort, while likely not being able to sell many of those units.
In your case it presumably very easy to modify the frame, you just put in another shock. In my case, the effort is at least a magnitude above that.

Regarding rear travel, with my above example you'd end up with 189mm of rear suspension. That doesn't seem to shabby, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Thankfully I already have a bike to test it out on. Not aot of sizing options but I'd probably try an imperial 8.5x2.5 shock. It'd be great to see if I could get them to run the numbers and curves with the longer shock.

And yes the longer shock raising the BB would be nice. The HTA is barely 64* in the high setting. I'd probably be able to drop it back into the low setting while still keeping the bb high enough and still maintain a slack 63* HTA
 
Last edited:
Has anyone had any problems with the linkage coming loose on the SANN? I’m going to post a full 1000km review shortly (it’s a bit wordy) but long story short, at just over 1000km the bearings in the rear triangle pivot were shot and in the angle linkage. Previously I had to tighten them way more often than the 300km recommended in the manual. I changed them all using NSK bearings but there is definitely play in the back end using the torque specs from the manual.
 
Tjhell said:
Has anyone had any problems with the linkage coming loose on the SANN? I’m going to post a full 1000km review shortly (it’s a bit wordy) but long story short, at just over 1000km the bearings in the rear triangle pivot were shot and in the angle linkage. Previously I had to tighten them way more often than the 300km recommended in the manual. I changed them all using NSK bearings but there is definitely play in the back end using the torque specs from the manual.
Click to expand...
We had to re-torque all the fasteners after about 6mos. The wife weighs almost nothing and isn't very aggressive so haven't had much needed beyond that.

If the holes for the linkages has distorted it won't add enough crush to the race of the bearings. Over torquing won't change that.

Have you contacted hybridizer?
 
Last edited:
ATXZJ said:
We had to re-torque all the fasteners after about 6mos. The wife weighs almost nothing and isn't very aggressive so haven't had much needed beyond that.
Click to expand...
I’m 90kg and aggressive so expecting a bit more love needed.

I’m going to try and buy a new linkage from them and start again with it. Maybe I’m just unlucky with the tolerances being out.
 
I placed my order this week. Does anyone know the exact size?
1746820796121.png
 
Just bear in mind the seatpost insert length includes the mechanism on a wired dropper. I tested the insert on my size L with a solid post and I got a realistic 195mm from the claimed 205.

Unfortunately the seatpost insert length is one of the negative aspects of the bike for me, along with how the wire routes under the shock.
 
Tjhell said:
Lembre-se de que o comprimento do encaixe do canote inclui o mecanismo de um retrátil com fio. Testei o encaixe no meu tamanho G com um canote sólido e obtive 195 mm realistas, com base nos 205 anunciados.

Infelizmente, o comprimento do encaixe do canote é um dos aspectos negativos da bicicleta para mim, junto com a maneira como o fio passa sob o amortecedor.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read about it.
I'm going to use a regular seatpost, but I'm going to use a curved Thompson model.

1746995865663.png
 
ATXZJ said:
Dear God. Why?
Click to expand...

Because for me, the simpler the better. In my canyon I have a Rockshox reverb and I rarely use a different position for climbs or descents. So why add components that will cost me more maintenance and more money? This works for me.
 
Reverb is garbage. I can (almost) understand the keep it simple methodology, but a setback seatpost? Is it 2005?
 
Tjhell said:
Unfortunately the seatpost insert length is one of the negative aspects of the bike for me.
Click to expand...

It's not great at all. 120mm dropper sticks out almost 40mm on my wifes bike. Also the tariffs makes buying a second frame for me an absolute no go. I've needed a couple small parts that were either damaged in shipping (derailleur hanger), defective (charging port cover) or flat out missing upon arrival (preload cap for non-drive side crank). All of which were met with promise of additional shipping and parts charges when brought to the attention of hybridizer via email. I'll consider myself grateful that this frame has worked out for my wife and stay very, very clear of fly by night chinese manufacturers moving forward. Best luck
 
leandrolopesramos said:
Yes, I read about it.
I'm going to use a regular seatpost, but I'm going to use a curved Thompson model.

View attachment 160369
Click to expand...
I guess you can experiment with what works for you and how the post being curved affects the geometry. The SANN is already quite slack feeling but it’s your ride so get it set up how you want it. I personally couldn’t imagine being without a dropper though, I must trigger mine at least 50 times over a 2 hour ride and you often need to get the post up or down to keep traction with such a powerful motor. I ride steep technical trails as much as possible, so it really depends what kind of terrain you will be hitting.
 
ATXZJ said:
Para ser sincero, suas mãos estão ficando dormentes, sua posição sentada está errada e seu núcleo está fraco. Pergunte-me como eu sei;)
Click to expand...
Você sabe disso porque é profissional. Eu sou apenas um atleta casual de fim de semana que gosta de explorar novas trilhas e, às vezes, tentar pequenos saltos em parques de bicicleta:)
 
You know because you are a professional. I am just a casual weekend athlete who likes to explore new trails and sometimes try small jumps in bike parks :)
 
leandrolopesramos said:
You know because you are a professional. I am just a casual weekend athlete who likes to explore new trails and sometimes try small jumps in bike parks :)
Click to expand...
I'm not a professional by any stretch. Disc brakes and droppers are probably the best things to happen to MTB in the last 20 yrs. Even gravel bikes have droppers now
 
Hallo, hab da wohl irgendwie ein Problem mit meinem Sann. Habe eins von den ersten Modellen mit dem 720wh Akku.

Wenn ich normal auf der Straße fahre mit mittlerer Unterstützung fällt meine Akkuleistung rapide ab. In 6 km teilweise bis zu 17 %

Reichweite schaffe ich keine 40km. Das Fahrrad hat erst knapp 1000 km drauf:(
 
Blue83 said:
Hallo, hab da wohl irgendwie ein Problem mit meinem Sann. Habe eins von den ersten Modellen mit dem 720wh Akku.

Wenn ich normal auf der Straße fahre mit mittlerer Unterstützung fällt meine Akkuleistung rapide ab. In 6 km teilweise bis zu 17 %

Reichweite schaffe ich keine 40km. Das Fahrrad hat erst knapp 1000 km drauf:(
Click to expand...
Ich würde mich mit Ihren Problemen an Hybridizer wenden.

[email protected]

[email protected]
 
Hallo. Ich nochmal 😀 habe jetzt eine schnelle Runde aufgezeichnet

Bin durchgehend auf Stufe Standard gefahren und habe 22 % Akku verbraucht. Die Stecke geht überwiegend bergab und gerade. Alles Teer. Fahre auf Schwalbe Supermoto.

22% Akkuverbrauch ist zu viel oder was meint ihr?

Grus Daniel

Screenshot_20250523-190143.png
 
Blue83 said:
oder was meint ihr?
Click to expand...
I think that it's wrong to use your native language, when you want to receive support or get opinions. This forum is english, so please follow the rules.

The modded 52V battery of my sann is also performing very poorly, but I'm using a M560 with 30A firmware, so I demand more from it, than the average sann-user. However the cells they use are crap and can't handle a lot discharge. It's a shame and I really regret buying the battery from them at all. It was in their hands to select proper cells, but they didn't. I plan on making a new one any time this year, using tabless Ampace JP40 cells.

Either try to claim warranty at Hybridizer or take the gamble and buy their new 840Wh pack or take it into your own hands and build a proper battery.
 
I’ve got a EP6 bike that was showing ridiculously short range available from new until I rode it all the way down to a red flashing warning below 10% charge remaining. Then did a full charge and it went up 33% in range in all power setting. Likely balanced all the cells that way.
Might be worthwhile running your Hybridizer down that low (but not to complete discharge) then seeing what type of range you get after the recharge.
The 6 amp Hybridizer charger doesn’t seem to be a great idea to me, the slower charge of the 3 amp should be gentler on the battery.
Try doubling the amps while you are welding something and see what the results are…
 
Who’s There said:
The 6 amp Hybridizer charger doesn’t seem to be a great idea to me, the slower charge of the 3 amp should be gentler on the battery.
Try doubling the amps while you are welding something and see what the results are…
Click to expand...


Totally agree here. Went with the 3amp model for battery longevities sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Keep reading
    Browse all

    Similar Threads

    Community Stats

    Since 2018
    675K
    Messages
    41,855
    Members
    Join 30,000+ Riders, it's free!
    Back
    Top