Lightcarbon LCES004 (Dengfu E10 alternative in USA)

[TCFlowClyde]

Cheers
I’m Uk so lots of Mud. Was leaning towards a Mullet setup, my only concern was my BB height as I’ve had a few pedal strikes. so a 29 all round would lift that a bit and along with Miranda cranks that would solve that.

The mullet actually gave a higher angle of incidence, so more acute meant steeper for me and raised the front of the motor up, slightly fewer pedal strikes. But the 3.0 are also taller as a carcass overall. And I use 152 mm cranks. Lastly, I syncopate and cant over rocky tech especially if the highest/fastest mode and on really curvey, narrow terrain. All reduce strikes and seem more unique to an E-mtb v. analog IMHO

 

[JimLee-Lightcarbon]

Thinking of new wheels.
What’s size did you Lces004 boys go for?
Would I get away with a 29er on the back?

Max tire: 650b*2.8" and 29er*2.4"
you want rear 29er and front 27.5“？ normally, isn't mullet the opposite?

 

[Dave Rand]

Was thinking of either Mullet 29front 27rear or go 29 all round for Bottom bracket clearance.

 

[JimLee-Lightcarbon]

Was thinking of either Mullet 29front 27rear or go 29 all round for Bottom bracket clearance.

Do you like the feeling of rapid turning and drifting? If not, 29 er both front and rear are better, mullet wheel front 29er and 27.5" rear, The angle of the seat tube will be steeper, the BB center will drop, and the crank may rub the ground when turning to the right. You also need to adjust the length of the handlebar and stem,
For an EMTB, a BB position drop is more likely to make motor position is no longer horizontal.
Of course, these small impacts may not appear in a short time, and maybe will not have an obvious impact on you until you want to replace a new and better EMTB. However, they are real,

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Was thinking of either Mullet 29front 27rear or go 29 all round for Bottom bracket clearance.

Mullet forever

 

[patdam]

Mullet forever

I'm not so categorical. Yes if you have short base length dedicated to 27,5 (+-433), the bike is more playfull, whithout notifiable loose (for me) in stability.
But when you have base dedicated to 29 (more than 450) the différence is not very important i feel. You mosthly feel the inertie of the wheel, more important on 29 than 27.5 at equivalent items (tire/brake/k7)

i don't take acount of angle and BB drop (independentelly adjustable by the suspension length/travel and cranks length)

 

[bram.biesiekierski]

I prefer 27.5 rear tyre (with shorter chainstays). It's more nimble I think.

I find with 29 rear tyre, and anything over about 140mm rear travel in the bike, and I will often buzz my bum on the rear tyre on big hits. (I'm 184cm, so not exactly short either)

Front I think 29 is always a good choice. But I have no problem with 27.5 front either. The slightly larger 29 tyre does tend to roll better I think.

On a bikes which rear ends are capable of going 29, ie longer chainstays, you kind of loose the benefits of the 27.5. So I guess either, unless you have short legs and sometimes buzz your bum.

 

[patdam]

I prefer 27.5 rear tyre (with shorter chainstays). It's more nimble I think.

I find with 29 rear tyre, and anything over about 140mm rear travel in the bike, and I will often buzz my bum on the rear tyre on big hits. (I'm 184cm, so not exactly short either)

Front I think 29 is always a good choice. But I have no problem with 27.5 front either. The slightly larger 29 tyre does tend to roll better I think.

On a bikes which rear ends are capable of going 29, ie longer chainstays, you kind of loose the benefits of the 27.5. So I guess either, unless you have short legs and sometimes buzz your bum.

Regarding front 29 in comparison of 27.5, only advantages and on this point i have not any doubt, for everybody (may be except S size ?

 

[TCFlowClyde]

I'm not so categorical. Yes if you have short base length dedicated to 27,5 (+-433), the bike is more playfull, whithout notifiable loose (for me) in stability.
But when you have base dedicated to 29 (more than 450) the différence is not very important i feel. You mosthly feel the inertie of the wheel, more important on 29 than 27.5 at equivalent items (tire/brake/k7)

i don't take acount of angle and BB drop (independentelly adjustable by the suspension length/travel and cranks length)

I'm not so categorical. Yes if you have short base length dedicated to 27,5 (+-433), the bike is more playfull, whithout notifiable loose (for me) in stability.
But when you have base dedicated to 29 (more than 450) the différence is not very important i feel. You mosthly feel the inertie of the wheel, more important on 29 than 27.5 at equivalent items (tire/brake/k7)

i don't take acount of angle and BB drop (independentelly adjustable by the suspension length/travel and cranks length)

Yep. BUT...since the question was specific to the LCES004 frame which is a "trail enduro" geometry design with a slightly longer chainstay (much like a Trek Rail)...mullet pros outweighs the cons for this particular frame. It's designed for a 2.6 - 3.0 plus 27.5er wheel, meant for playful, aggressive riding styles. However, if one's riding style is more XC, than by all means squeeze in the 2.4" 29er rear tire. Also, the skinny 29er rear would be limited by the extra weight and muddy conditions whereby most Emtbs run 2.6 width or higher because the extra weight of the motor and battery gives the very stable "planted" feel. So, it depends! Mullet configurations in a 27.5 frame (which this is) will give more options and more playfulness, but not be unusually unstable in it's performance characteristics due to the longer chain stay and extra motor/battery weight. This will mediate gyroscopic/centripetal forces, providing a good balance. Great for switchbacks or agility on a trail that has more pop, hop, and drop opportunities, making it less boring if too groomed/flat singletrack. It does for me anyway!

If it was a true 29er designed E-mtb frame that can run wider tires with great mud clearance, than that's different story.

All that been said it's ultimately personal preference. If you're able to try both wheel sizes to see what best fits your preferred style and typical trail conditions. I have a buddy that has the Trek Rail with a "flip chip" for either rear wheel size. He'll run mullet for tight technical trails (maneuverability) and his main configuration. And when he occasionally bikepacks, he uses the 29er configuration for flatter conditions for XC trails, and dirt roads for greater efficiency and battery range. But the Rail is designed to accommodate either wheel size. Ours in contrast, is more designed for 27.5er setup (IMHO).

 

[patdam]

Yep. BUT...since the question was specific to the LCES004 frame which is a "trail enduro" geometry design with a slightly longer chainstay (much like a Trek Rail)...mullet pros outweighs the cons for this particular frame. It's designed for a 2.6 - 3.0 plus 27.5er wheel, meant for playful, aggressive riding styles. However, if one's riding style is more XC, than by all means squeeze in the 2.4" 29er rear tire. Also, the skinny 29er rear would be limited by the extra weight and muddy conditions whereby most Emtbs run 2.6 width or higher because the extra weight of the motor and battery gives the very stable "planted" feel. So, it depends! Mullet configurations in a 27.5 frame (which this is) will give more options and more playfulness, but not be unusually unstable in it's performance characteristics due to the longer chain stay and extra motor/battery weight. This will mediate gyroscopic/centripetal forces, providing a good balance. Great for switchbacks or agility on a trail that has more pop, hop, and drop opportunities, making it less boring if too groomed/flat singletrack. It does for me anyway!

If it was a true 29er designed E-mtb frame that can run wider tires with great mud clearance, than that's different story.

All that been said it's ultimately personal preference. If you're able to try both wheel sizes to see what best fits your preferred style and typical trail conditions. I have a buddy that has the Trek Rail with a "flip chip" for either rear wheel size. He'll run mullet for tight technical trails (maneuverability) and his main configuration. And when he occasionally bikepacks, he uses the 29er configuration for flatter conditions for XC trails, and dirt roads for greater efficiency and battery range. But the Rail is designed to accommodate either wheel size. Ours in contrast, is more designed for 27.5er setup (IMHO).

My opinion is based on tests on few bikes. Not the lightcarbon (for the moment, i'm waiting an LCES1075). For the mulet, i have tested on 2 bike: cayon spectral on with 433 of base length (first rev, with possibility to adjust angles) and the E10 with 455 (where i have also modified the angles with shocks length). i have tried the two in mulet and in full 29, in various tires section (between 2.4/2.6) and with variousl angles. I have feeled notifiable differencies in comportement (regardless angles and tires section) between 27'5 and 29 rear with 433 base. With these bases i was convinced that the mulet is the best.
But when i have tested with 455 bases, i have feel very lower differncies (more with tire section) and with the LCES1075, destinated to build an bike most trail.AM than the E10 most enduro, i plan to use 29x2.4 rear.

I have also tried front 27.5 and 29 on several bike (mulet / full 27.5) and the 29 was always the better (if you don't go too far of original angles).

 

[TCFlowClyde]

My opinion is based on tests on few bikes. Not the lightcarbon (for the moment, i'm waiting an LCES1075). For the mulet, i have tested on 2 bike: cayon spectral on with 433 of base length (first rev, with possibility to adjust angles) and the E10 with 455 (where i have also modified the angles with shocks length). i have tried the two in mulet and in full 29, in various tires section (between 2.4/2.6) and with variousl angles. I have feeled notifiable differencies in comportement (regardless angles and tires section) between 27'5 and 29 rear with 433 base. With these bases i was convinced that the mulet is the best.
But when i have tested with 455 bases, i have feel very lower differncies (more with tire section) and with the LCES1075, destinated to build an bike most trail.AM than the E10 most enduro, i plan to use 29x2.4 rear.

I have also tried front 27.5 and 29 on several bike (mulet / full 27.5) and the 29 was always the better (if you don't go too far of original angles).

Makes sense...it's all good! For me the mullet works well on the LCES004

 

[temon10]

not LCES004, Due to the size limitation of the battery slot, LCES004 can only install BT f04 at most, the frame I said fit for M510 and BTF 25 is LCE28, have two model, LCE28A fit for M620 motor (750/1000w) and BTF 25, LCE28-B fit for M510 /M600 motor, and battery BT F25, but request the motor and battery have the same voltage, same 48V or same 52V.

Any picture of LCE28-B? consider use minimum rearshock 205mm trunion or 210mm

 

[JimLee-Lightcarbon]

Rear shock size recommend 190*51mm.

 

[raggertje]

Hi,

I just finished a LightCarbon LCES004 M600 build. I’m planning to build a custom 14S4P Samsung 21700 50E soft pack battery for the frame. The 1040Wh should be sufficient for those big days out and I like to ride in mode 5

I measured the frame and made a drawing. Maybe it is possible but it’s gonna be a tight fit. Anyone experience squeezing this into the frame?

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Hi,

I just finished a LightCarbon LCES004 M600 build. I’m planning to build a custom 14S4P Samsung 21700 50E soft pack battery for the frame. The 1040Wh should be sufficient for those big days out and I like to ride in mode 5

I measured the frame and made a drawing. Maybe it is possible but it’s gonna be a tight fit. Anyone experience squeezing this into the frame?

View attachment 105130

Dave Rand built up a 988 Wh 21700 cell soft pack for his LCES 04....I'm getting ready myself (newbie).

https://www.emtbforums.com/posts/414404/bookmark

 

[raggertje]

Dave Rand built up a 988 Wh 21700 cell soft pack for his LCES 04....I'm getting ready myself (newbie).

https://www.emtbforums.com/posts/414404/bookmark

Thanks, I did noticed that, though I think that was a 13S and not 14S, so a bit smaller with 4 cells less.
And building your own battery is great fun TCFlowClyde!

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Thanks, I did noticed that, though I think that was a 13S and not 14S, so a bit smaller with 4 cells less.
And building your own battery is great fun TCFlowClyde!

Here's link. He did a really innovative cover and cradle/ mounting system. Very professional looking.

[URLunfurl="true"]https://www.emtbforums.com/threads/my-lightcarbon-lc4-😎.28112/post-404226[/URL]

 

[raggertje]

Here's link. He did a really innovative cover and cradle/ mounting system. Very professional looking.

[URLunfurl="true"]https://www.emtbforums.com/threads/my-lightcarbon-lc4-.28112/post-404226[/URL]

Yeahhh... it looks really good! Great inspiration

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Yeahhh... it looks really good! Great inspiration

Begrudgingly, I have to soft pack it...just hoping to not burn the house down in the process.

Post any relevant steps in your process to help other noobs like myself?

 

[JimLee-Lightcarbon]

Yeahhh... it looks really good! Great inspiration

I also wait for your post.

 

[raggertje]

Yes! A 14S4P 21700 soft pack battery fits! I temporarily taped it to the frame until I made the mounting system and the coverplate

 

[TCFlowClyde]

Yes! A 14S4P 21700 soft pack battery fits! I temporarily taped it to the frame until I made the mounting system and the coverplate

View attachment 109844 View attachment 109845 View attachment 109846

Awesome dude! Got my LCES04 and building my 21700 very soon!

 

[merc123123]

I am sharing my Solidwork files of a fitted battery cover for the LCES04. I 3d printed the cover, as it is not meant to bear the whole weight of the battery, since I have 2 straps that hold the battery in the frame. The straps are fitted to a metal bar I cut and fixed with the screws in the bottle holder threads (from below, but could also be fitted with a bottle cage with longer screws and a nut on the other side). I also have room for some foam padding in between the frame and the battery, so there is no rattling noise. It feels very solid. Feel free to play around. I started from the provided STEP file of the BTF03, but modified it slightly, for ease of printing. Also attached are the 2 files for the 2 openings, one is just an empty plug, and the other one I am using to house a female xt60, for charging. I epoxied the connector to the plug, so it is solid. The plugs are only press fitted for now and sealed using liquid electrical tape.

 

[JimLee-Lightcarbon]

I am sharing my Solidwork files of a fitted battery cover for the LCES04. I 3d printed the cover, as it is not meant to bear the whole weight of the battery, since I have 2 straps that hold the battery in the frame. The straps are fitted to a metal bar I cut and fixed with the screws in the bottle holder threads (from below, but could also be fitted with a bottle cage with longer screws and a nut on the other side). I also have room for some foam padding in between the frame and the battery, so there is no rattling noise. It feels very solid. Feel free to play around. I started from the provided STEP file of the BTF03, but modified it slightly, for ease of printing. Also attached are the 2 files for the 2 openings, one is just an empty plug, and the other one I am using to house a female xt60, for charging. I epoxied the connector to the plug, so it is solid. The plugs are only press fitted for now and sealed using liquid electrical tape.

Cool, Bookmarked and shared, great!

 

[temon10]

I am sharing my Solidwork files of a fitted battery cover for the LCES04. I 3d printed the cover, as it is not meant to bear the whole weight of the battery, since I have 2 straps that hold the battery in the frame. The straps are fitted to a metal bar I cut and fixed with the screws in the bottle holder threads (from below, but could also be fitted with a bottle cage with longer screws and a nut on the other side). I also have room for some foam padding in between the frame and the battery, so there is no rattling noise. It feels very solid. Feel free to play around. I started from the provided STEP file of the BTF03, but modified it slightly, for ease of printing. Also attached are the 2 files for the 2 openings, one is just an empty plug, and the other one I am using to house a female xt60, for charging. I epoxied the connector to the plug, so it is solid. The plugs are only press fitted for now and sealed using liquid electrical tape.

any photo of the result?

 

[merc123123]

any photo of the result?

Not great at taking photos (or spray painting, since I ran out of black filament), but here is a working version fitted to my bike

I did modify the cover to be correct since printing my version because I noticed that the opening curvature is not symmetrical, but it still fits ok as is in my version and I don't want to spend another 8h printing it the correct way.
In the files, you will notice space to press in M4 nuts (heated with a soldering iron) and they attach to the frame with M4 screws lengths around 13-15mm. There is also an M6 bolt, just screwed in the upper retaining "lip", so that it can be manipulated from the outside locking the cover, before being screwed to the frame holes.

 

[PH1L1PP3]

Hello, I plan to get an old BT F03 and emptier it to get the boxing and fill it with 21700 5,000mA cells.
Do you know where to get the top and bottom inner frame support?

 

[PH1L1PP3]

after we finished the 3D design of BT F03, we will make it public on the forum, For people who don't buy frames from us but need Bafang battery covers,

@JimLee-Lightcarbon
JimLee,
may I have the file to have one cover printed. I want to check the result before to take the decision to buy the LCES004
Thanks in advance.

 

[JimLee-Lightcarbon]

@JimLee-Lightcarbon
JimLee,
may I have the file to have one cover printed. I want to check the result before to take the decision to buy the LCES004
Thanks in advance.

Hi my friend,
someone in this forum made a 3D modle, check it fit for you or not:

 

[PH1L1PP3]

Hi my friend,
someone in this forum made a 3D modle, check it fit for you or not:

Thanks JimLee