SZZS CEF69 Build with New Bafang M510 3.0 version

borysgo2 said:
In a very similar CEF55 frame I am runnig 38T front sprocket.
Due to excessive play in lower/rear motor mounting bolt, had to put 0,7mm thick distance at non drive side - so motor moved about 0,7mm to the right. Also I have chamfered sprocket a bit on inside so now have about 2mm of the clearance to the back arm.
Regards
Click to expand...
Hmm thanks. I guess I'm going to have to play with it.

I'm a bit sad, because this bike will be a small for my wife (27.5), and I kinda either need to be able to get a 38 (ideally 42, but at least 38) or I have to shell out extra money for the shimano 9-45 cassette.

I have that same cassette on my bike, so it isn't a bad component, but... its expensive, and I would really prefer using something a bit more durable for her since she tends to grind and mash a lot more.

(She uses a 42/11 right now and that just barely works for her on our flats. She was not happy with the speeds she was reaching with the 38/11 previously. 38/10 would give the same ratio as 42/11, 36/9 is higher, but still).
 
⚡ EMTB Pro Go Pro — exclusive discounts & ad-free Peaty's 25% off & more · Ad-free browsing · Pro badge See the deals →
If all goes well I test my one next week. Cheers.

IMG20260411150147.webp


IMG20260411150122.webp
 
Small update, 38T chain ring fits OK but there is one thing that can not be overlooked.

I am surprised that so many frames are assembled and nobody reported excessive play in the frame motor mounting.
There is about 1mm of the gap so there are distance washers needed to putt in place (same as cef55 frame).
My advice is to place them on non drive side so the motor shifts slightly to the right - that will increase clearance in between the lower arm and 38T sprocket. If you do not need 38T just place distance washers whenever You like.

Regards

CLEARANCE1.webp


CLEARANCE2.webp


CLEARANCE3.webp
 
Got that thing putted back together. Done only short 400m of ride on tarmac. In FC4.0 version of the motor eco is tuned to about 150W,tour to about 200W. At boost what I can get Max is about 680W. Power ramp up is rather slow and smooth. Generally motor tune is similar to m820 fake taxi FW.
I can feel a good bit of a resistance when turning the cranks without a chain, motor might have rather high drag when pedaling wit empty battery. Will see after some more of riding.

Have two similar bikes side by side, CEF55 and cef69, will try to compare them to see if there is a real advantage of m510 over m820.

Cheers

IMG20260417184505.webp
 
ssl said:
Hi mate…. so what bottom of your rear shock you got as mine is not turned horizontal like that its vertical like all rear trunion shokcs?
Click to expand...
Mate should be able to rotate the shock to fit twist it. Most people have to do this.
 
hi. CEF69 users, please can you share your BB height and your config: wheels size, fork travel, shock length and linkage rev.
 
borysgo2 said:
Got that thing putted back together. Done only short 400m of ride on tarmac. In FC4.0 version of the motor eco is tuned to about 150W,tour to about 200W. At boost what I can get Max is about 680W. Power ramp up is rather slow and smooth. Generally motor tune is similar to m820 fake taxi FW.
I can feel a good bit of a resistance when turning the cranks without a chain, motor might have rather high drag when pedaling wit empty battery. Will see after some more of riding.

Have two similar bikes side by side, CEF55 and cef69, will try to compare them to see if there is a real advantage of m510 over m820.

Cheers

View attachment 182223
Click to expand...
any feedback on which motor/frame you prefer? CEF55 vs CEF69 and M510 vs M820?
 
stuff said:
any feedback on which motor/frame you prefer? CEF55 vs CEF69 and M510 vs M820?
Click to expand...
M820 - i think it is more efficient at lower powers (up to sport mode), let me say You would like to some very long mountain tours. There is more clunk noise coming from it. It is lighter to ride with drained battery. There is a nice fake taxi FW for it.

M510 FC4.0 - very smooth, nice to ride, my motor is very quiet. There is a bit of a drag when riding with no battery. Stock tune require rider to work harder than on FC2.1 motor.
In my opinion m820 FT firmware is similar to stock tune of M510 FC4.0.

A short YT of M510 FC4.0

CEF55/CEF69 - two very similar frames but can form a completely different bikes.
In my case CEF55 is adventure bike for long days. CEF69 is more enduro oriented bike. I like to ride both bikes, CEF55 in my config is way faster on flow trails but will lack on enduro stuff.

Bike fitting is also very important, very often under estimated. Things like stem, handlebar, saddle can change a lot.

Cheers
 
borysgo2 said:
M820 - i think it is more efficient at lower powers (up to sport mode), let me say You would like to some very long mountain tours. There is more clunk noise coming from it. It is lighter to ride with drained battery. There is a nice fake taxi FW for it.

M510 FC4.0 - very smooth, nice to ride, my motor is very quiet. There is a bit of a drag when riding with no battery. Stock tune require rider to work harder than on FC2.1 motor.
In my opinion m820 FT firmware is similar to stock tune of M510 FC4.0.

A short YT of M510 FC4.0

CEF55/CEF69 - two very similar frames but can form a completely different bikes.
In my case CEF55 is adventure bike for long days. CEF69 is more enduro oriented bike. I like to ride both bikes, CEF55 in my config is way faster on flow trails but will lack on enduro stuff.

Bike fitting is also very important, very often under estimated. Things like stem, handlebar, saddle can change a lot.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Thanks, really appreciate it!
I currently have a CEF50 with 165/170 travel that I use as enduro and really like it, but most people have mentioned how better the suspension and stiffness overall are on the CEF55/CEF69, so was evaluating on moving motor/battery to a new CEF55 frame or buying a CEF69 with a M510 and reusing the battery
 
Rear end in CEF69 is not stiff at all. There is a good bit of the flex at the back stays.

Hope new seatstay with bridge will be developed soon. That would be great improvement.
 
borysgo2 said:
Rear end in CEF69 is not stiff at all. There is a good bit of the flex at the back stays.

Hope new seatstay with bridge will be developed soon. That would be great improvement.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this detail, I thought they were stiffer.

Do you notice any difference in downhill between CEF55 and CEF69? mainly if you have a 210x55 in the CEF55 and 205+62.5+ on the CEF69.
I still doubt on ordering a CEF55 frame and moving my m820 motor to it from the CEF50 I currently have, if there would be any improvement or just a waste of money.
 
stuff said:
Thanks for this detail, I thought they were stiffer.

Do you notice any difference in downhill between CEF55 and CEF69? mainly if you have a 210x55 in the CEF55 and 205+62.5+ on the CEF69.
I still doubt on ordering a CEF55 frame and moving my m820 motor to it from the CEF50 I currently have, if there would be any improvement or just a waste of money.
Click to expand...
Personally i don't feel disturb with rear triangle on my CEF50. It haven't a bridge on the back stays, but it have 2 bearings side by side on both side axels and i find this solutions technically interesting and efficient. I don't think (for my level and practice) that a bridge will been provided "great improvement". May be that matching less with the linkage and the trunion shock ?

What do you unlike on the CEF50 and you think that the CEF55 will be better ?
 
patdam said:
Personally i don't feel disturb with rear triangle on my CEF50. It haven't a bridge on the back stays, but it have 2 bearings side by side on both side axels and i find this solutions technically interesting and efficient. I don't think (for my level and practice) that a bridge will been provided "great improvement". May be that matching less with the linkage and the trunion shock ?

What do you unlike on the CEF50 and you think that the CEF55 will be better ?
Click to expand...
There's really not much that I unlike on the CEF50, i'm quite happy with it, but compared to my Capra I believe the suspension feels more stiff in the capra and like that feeling, but overall I've 0 complains on the CEF50 and can ride the same trails (blue/red/blacks) at the same speed
 
I'm eager to receive it so I can assemble it. I have asked to purchase the two linkage assembly to check if t
2848fa0bfa29f5f5c76b13561714b059.webp
 
I know that they working on a new rear triangle. try convince them that lotoff customers waiting for that ;) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Keep reading
    Browse all

    Similar Threads

    Community Stats

    Since 2018
    668K
    Messages
    40,701
    Members
    Join 30,000+ Riders, it's free!
    Back
    Top