Hybridizer Sann Bafang M500 series Aluminum FS

[Tomblarom]

@ATXZJ have you considered using a conversion kit? You could use any Shimano frame, that suits your preference. Only solving the battery mounting could become challenging, because all newer frames have the battery inside the downtube.

If this sounds interesting to you, lets chat over here --> Teaser for Shimano to Bafang M600 conversion

 

[El Topo]

Wish i could talk Hybridizer into machining a long travel linkage kit.

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.

 

[ATXZJ]

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.

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.

 

[El Topo]

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.

Not a bad suggestion. My main concern would be how much it would alter suspension kinematics.

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.

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.

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'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.

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?

 

[ATXZJ]

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?

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