SZZS CEF69 Build with New Bafang M510 3.0 version

[Triman]

It's new bike day!

CEF69 (m510 non-RS version, we'limited to 250W in europe and the RS version wasn't available at the time of purchase).
I ordered the frame mid-march

The frame is a size small.
Fork: Rockshox Psylo 160mm
Rear shock: Rockshox Select +
Brakes: IIIPro E4
Transmission: Sram eagle GX
Wheels: 29'' ZTTO aluminium with DT swiss clone hubs

The bike weights 22.3kgs with pedals and sealant (running tubeless).

 

[Wallyza]

Once again reminding the group here that a 2.6" 27.5 has the same radius as a 2.35" 29er so unless you are planning on running a super small 27.5, there is absolutely no need to buy off more travel or z height.

Yes, but no thanks. The whole point is to have the rear smaller in diameter.

 

[curufinwe_wins]

Yes, but no thanks. The whole point is to have the rear smaller in diameter.

Lol, except for a 190mm travel bike, a 2.6" wheel is already small. You really running less than 2.4x27.5 out back? Because if you are not, there is nothing to discuss, since the bike works fine for 2.4x29er as is.

I may well love running 2.4x around. I have my wifes bike of this exact frame in size small running 2.4x27.5 in both front and rear, as shown on the images that have been tossed around. It works fine with acceptable ground clearance as is. Mullet would improve that ground clearance by raising the front end.

But I'm an exception, everyone else I know who likes enduro emtbs runs at least 2.6" which I'm then telling you will be more than fine, even with a 27.5 wheel. You can still run 2.6" front and back and get a bigger front with 29er.

 

[Wallyza]

Lol, except for a 190mm travel bike, a 2.6" wheel is already small. You really running less than 2.4x27.5 out back? Because if you are not, there is nothing to discuss, since the bike works fine for 2.4x29er as is.

I may well love running 2.4x around. I have my wifes bike of this exact frame in size small running 2.4x27.5 in both front and rear, as shown on the images that have been tossed around. It works fine with acceptable ground clearance as is. Mullet would improve that ground clearance by raising the front end.

But I'm an exception, everyone else I know who likes enduro emtbs runs at least 2.6" which I'm then telling you will be more than fine, even with a 27.5 wheel. You can still run 2.6" front and back and get a bigger front with 29er.

I had a 27.5x2.3 Butcher rear and a 29x2.5 Assegai up front with 152mm cranks and was hitting pedals on every ride, especially in tech climbs.
Yes, you can run a 2.6 rear but for me it is too squishy (rolls over itself) far too much and you have to up your pressure. All in all not ideal and not what I want. I want the tyre sizes I had. Personal preference is a wonderful thing. If that works for you and you like 2.4 or 2.6 then that's perfect for you. I do not like 2.6, that feels like heading into fatbike territory to me.
But whatever, ride your bike and have a blast on it.

 

[stuff]

Ready to print the 27.5" yoke.
If someone is from EU (even better Spain) and has a CEF69 that wants to try the 3d print to measure the BB height with a 27.5" just let me know and i'll send it to you.

This is only to test, a 3d printed yoke is not usable in real life!! (but if it works then an alu one can built!)

 

[ficorama]

unless you change the geometry at least a little, I don't see the point of the mullet. or at least if you have a flipchip for a shorter chainstay. I had an orbea wild with a mullet link, I felt a very small difference, even imperceptible, the full 29 suited me better. orbea with a mullet link, there is almost no difference in geometry.

 

[curufinwe_wins]

I had a 27.5x2.3 Butcher rear and a 29x2.5 Assegai up front with 152mm cranks and was hitting pedals on every ride, especially in tech climbs.
Yes, you can run a 2.6 rear but for me it is too squishy (rolls over itself) far too much and you have to up your pressure. All in all not ideal and not what I want. I want the tyre sizes I had. Personal preference is a wonderful thing. If that works for you and you like 2.4 or 2.6 then that's perfect for you. I do not like 2.6, that feels like heading into fatbike territory to me.
But whatever, ride your bike and have a blast on it.

2.3 on a 190mm travel bike? But are we being real right now?

That's like running 40s on a trail bike.

I mean yes, you are right, ride what you want, and if you are really pushing small 27.5s I can see why the ground clearance is an issue. I would personally just recommend short stroking at that stage (run 170mm travel in rear with a 2.5mm stroke reduction), but obviously from the very beginning I did note "unless running very small 27.5s" so if thats you, go for it.