Maxarya Ray 2 Semi Recumbent w/high efficiency mid drive


Staff member
Jun 15, 2010
Utah, USA

I've decided to take a chance on a Maxarya Ray 2 because i want a secondary low power semi recumbent bike for mountain riding.

I've confirmed that the bike takes at least 20 x 2.4" tires on both sides, so it should have no problem taking the light motorcycle tires ( hutchinson spherus ) i plan to outfit it with.

There's almost no reviews on this bike. Out of 6 American dealers, only one company picked up the phone and still exists. So i don't even know if it is a good bike for certain! However, Maxarya is the only company making a bike like this today. So this thread will start out as more of a bicycle review and then a build thread. :)
If it proves sufficiently durable, and if you manage to fit a front suspension fork to it, and add thick moped tires, I think you will find that this will become your new speed demon.

In fact, if you swap out the steering to the type of tiller steering found on the M5 lowracers, it will be narrow enough for you to build a Craig Vetter style body shell on it, or even a full on streamliner fairing with footholes and an exit door.

If crosswind stability becomes an issue, heavier 16" moto wheels would help mitigate this due to their extra inertia.

This has a lot of potential. I'll be keeping an eye on the progress.
Who knows where it will slot in my fleet.. the Ray 2 is kind of the best of my bikeE and my Cannondale.

A conversion to another form of steering to allow for a big fairing is a pretty neat idea.

Here's how i see the bike after looking over many pictures of the frame..

Electrification pluses:

1) Excellent rear dropouts! bolt holes on both sides make adding a hub motor easy and sturdy.

2) Disc brakes on both sides allow you the flexibility to change wheel sizes.

3) Rear swingarm design should allow you to run a taller or shorter shock in order to modify the bike's geometry to your liking.

4) Running an eccentric bottom bracket tilted backwards and upwards, and also using a smaller initial reduction at the crank would do two things for you.. give you crank clearance for a suspension fork up front, plus also help free up the room below the 'top tube' to mount batteries and such.

2020-11-20 10_40_14-Window.jpg

..of course it would be much much nicer if maxarya had placed the bottom bracket in the center of the tube.. then no eccentric adjuster would be required and space below the bike could easily be utilized to mount a battery.. darn!

The eccentric adjuster hack for battery fitment may not be necessary if 5-10mm of spacers are added to the initial reduction stage in order to move the chain away from where a typical 'shark pack' would sit... or perhaps one of the longer form factor batteries:

2020-11-20 11_35_46-Window.jpg

5) The mid drive gives you very adjustable gearing and allows you to run pretty much any rear drive mechanism you want.. it also opens up some other interesting possibilities..

6) The bike will easily accept 16 x 2.25" moto/scooter tires on both sides.

Okay why is it a bad electric bike..

1) It's a folder. Folding bikes are classically flimsy - but we should withhold judgement for now.

2) Unlike the bikeE and Cannondale Bent, there isn't a 'tail' at the back of the bike which is a key place to put a battery.. the suggested rear bag puts your cargo in a horrible place for weight balance also.. so cargo space seems to be an afterthought on this bike... will require some innovative solutions to remedy.
Got the bike today and will add pics to this post tomorrow. Here's the text version for now.

Initial impressions of the Ray 2:

The bike was very well packed and had instructions for assembly.



The bike is really light and appears well built with only a few opportunities for weight loss and refinement left on the table in the frame design.

Ordering the locbuster ( folding handlebar ) was a mistake because it make the handlebars way too high. I will need a custom handlebar/stem setup asap. Or ditch the locbuster.
There are some super beefy water bottle bolt holes on the handlebar tube which appear to be affixed using a strong epoxy. Perhaps useful for a fairing/windshield mount.

The front fork is a very light 1 1/8" aluminum fork. I would have preferred a chromoly fork for the minor shock absorption effect. But clearly Maxarya was going for light weight.

The front fork/headtube are at a less slack angle than the bikeE and Cannondale which is good because front suspension would work well if added. However, the jury is still out on whether the crank arms will clear a 20" suspension fork. My guess is that i am 1/2 of an inch of clearance away from glory even if i mess with the eccentric adjuster. Adding a front fork would add 1.5 inches of extra height but you CAN use a taller rear shock to compensate for the geometry change.

The seat back is very narrow. It's tension is adjusted by zip ties, which is strange but OK. Not sure if i am a fan of the seat.
The seat tilts back significantly more than the bikeE and Cannondale.. which i appreciate very much :)
There is also room to modify the seat for even more rear tilt by drilling holes in the rear seat rail connectors. Hm!


Mounting a shark pack at the bottom of the front tube is possible with modifications to the initial chain stage.
Mounting a shark pack at the top of the front tube is very possible although i've not tested for 'leg clearance'.
There's also ample opportunities to mount a battery on the sides or perhaps on the rear of the seat.
So it's not the battery mounting nightmare i suspected it would be.





A small custom rear trunk and/or panniers is possible due to some bolt holes which have unspecified uses.. with some ingenuity, decent, mechanically solid storage is possible. Again, not as bad as i thought it would be and has lots of potential.

The bike is ideal for hub motors on either side thanks to thick dropouts and torque plate mounting holes aplenty. It appears that the bike will take dual 20 x 2.5" tires too. Although the stock rims are quite narrow which is a negative for fitting those wider tires though. They're clearly more appropriate for 1.25"-2.0" tires.



The bike has BB7 discs on both ends, impressive for a base model.

Compared to the large size Cannondale Bent, the rider sits about 1 inch taller and the wheelbase is identical at about 57 inches.
I suspect it will ride much like the Cannondale.



Overall this does seem like the best CLWB design i've seen so far. Waiting on 40f temps this weekend to give 'er a test ride. :thumb:


  • IMG_20201202_152218548.jpg
    329.7 KB · Views: 4,772
  • IMG_20201202_155310552.jpg
    82 KB · Views: 4,771
Okay, initial riding impressions..

Riding the bike with the seat all the way back does create a sketchy feeling at low speeds, although this is just a matter of physics and not the bike.. so i set it to the 'middle' position which matches where the cannondale and bikeE are positioned - right in the middle. Much better!

I would say that the steering feels a little less confident than the Cannondale, but that's likely due to the high handlebars thanks to the locbuster. I'm going to re-evaluate this once i remove it / redo the handlebars to my liking. The cannondale steered like this in stock configuration too.

The bike actually has a harsher ride than the bikeE. The bike E has a nice cane creek shock in the back and a chromoly fork and chromoly handlebar tube.. whereas the Maxarya has an aluminum fork and steer tube.. and a crappy DNM shock. Obviously there's lots of room for improvement. MC tires on both sides will help a lot. I would like it to have a caddilac-eseque ride quality like the cannondale has. But moreso :)

Stock gearing tops out a bit below 30mph which is inadequate for pedaling down the mondo hills i have. So that will need changing.

I think the bike has a lot of potential but it needs to be torn apart and rebuilt and then tested as a pedalbike again this weekend.

Then i need to cook up a battery mount system.
I will probably throw the eZee ( ~32mph fast winding ) on the bike until i decide on what motor system to go with.
Cool bike, like the bikeE but more stylish and bigger front wheel. I like the battery room on top and bottom over the Cannondale, because if I ever build something like that, I'll want to be able to accommodate a big big battery to go forever.
John in CR said:
Cool bike, like the bikeE but more stylish and bigger front wheel. I like the battery room on top and bottom over the Cannondale, because if I ever build something like that, I'll want to be able to accommodate a big big battery to go forever.

Yeah it's cool isn't it?

I have built a battery mount for the cannondale where a bigass >1kw-hr rectangle battery easily fits behind the seat. I intend that bike to be my big long distance cruiser once the frame is worked on. I am thinking that because this bike folds and is lighter, it will be designed for shorter distances/mountain riding. A full size shark pack is enough.

I have been brainstorming what kind of drive system i want for the bike. I was thinking AWD geared hubs, but the challenge is to find a geared hub that can withstand >500rpm without flinging off the magnets.

Because the initial chain stage is on the left side, i could use a 100mm dropout front geared hub motor with a sprocket attached to the disc brake to make a simplistic mid drive that's easy to service.


I was thinking that these mounting bolts for the eccentric adjuster are thick and beefy enough that i could bolt a bracket that holds a small geared motor on in place of the spacer nuts. I have a tiny 1.5kg 300w xiongda, a Bafang G310, and an eZee ( MAC variant ) to play with :mrgreen: these are all rear motors so with the 135mm axle spacing, they'd have to be offset so that the chainline aligns with the cranks.. which is not ideal.. but good enough for testing.. and i could later convert one of them to a 100mm front.. :thumb:

I'll be tearing this bike apart today or tomorrow :thumb:
My lower back is hurting and I am liking the idea of a laid back cruiser.

My KMX Typhoon has worked out very well, except for its width. l . . . If I could only fit between tighter spots.

I will be following along.

The above are the exact reasons why i like the semi recumbent as a platform. :thumb:

So i tore the bike apart yesterday and tried fitting a suspension fork. No manner of eccentric bottom bracket adjustment gives me the space i need for the 170mm pedals to not hit the forks. And i prefer 175mm pedals due to my long legs so going to shorter pedals is not really an option. ( also, these pedals are custom and reverse threaded since the drive action happens on the left side. I can't just go out and swap these.. )


I'm about half an inch from glory. So aggravating!

I researched this and 'problem solvers' makes an eccentric BB that is both lighter in weight and also allows ~3mm more offset. It also allows me to eliminate the need for the nuts at the bottom of the BB that keep the eccentric adjuster from sliding.


The front bottom bracket is 113mm wide. I could go with a shimano 122.5mm wide and gain another 4.5mm of clearance.

Another confounder is that my fork, a Suntour XCT Jr, has an outward bulge at the top. I would have a dramatically easier time clearing the fork if not for this :roll:

suntour xt fork.jpg

Meanwhile, there exist many no-name China forks that taper inwards at the top. I might be able to get away with one of these because this is a lightweight build designed to do around 30mph.

bucklos fork.jpg

So i have these options, in order of palatability..
1) Better eccentric BB to give me 3mm backwards clearance.
2) Wider bb -4.5mm side to side.
3) Lower headset components that are a couple MM taller. Perhaps a custom taller crown race?
4) Hacking some metal off the end of the cranks. There's quite a bit of extra metal to sacrifice.. and given that this is a semi recumbent and the cranks will never be stood on.. i feel this would be safe to do.
5) Switch to a crappier, but ~4mm narrower fork.

Somewhere in there is the possibility to fit a suspension fork. :thumb:

As far as bolting a hubmotor to the bottom bracket goes..


There are actually limited mounting options for an aesthetically pleasing hub motor mid drive setup, due to the width of even a front motor. The fact that the chain drive is on the opposite side of where it normally is rules out the use of bafang and similar mid drives. A cyclone or GNG type kit would likely work with some modifications. There are lots of bolt holes at the front of the bike to mount some kind if mid-drive motor setup though so i'd like to take advantage of that. Still unsure which way to go here.

A slightly wider bottom bracket, as well as a significantly taller front crank ( +10 teeth ) would allow a 100mm front hub to hide behind the front crank and look aesthetically pleasing though so that's a possibility to make the front hub mid drive work.

Problem solvers also sells these convenient cogs in various sizes that can bolt to a disc brake interface :bigthumb:



I did remove the locbuster due to the excessive height handlebars it creates, and found out that the original stem tube is designed to fit a 1.5 or 1.25 inch fork whereas the fork itself is 1.125 inches. I'm assuming on models sold without the locbuster, there's some sort of included shim. To get rid of the locbuster, i used a lower tube i purchased from Rans' parts site, plus a headtube extender to get a really solid grip on the fork. It works for now.

The locbuster and included lower tube are actually heavy as shit.. with the locbuster being over 1lbs itself. Whereas the rans lower tube weighs maybe.. 250g at most.


The bike is set up the way i like it for casual riding, with my favorite hutchinson spherus on the rear for flat protection. The smaller wheel up front has a tube with slime in it to prevent flats. I have less thick pedals installed so that i can slide the front seat forward a bit more to get a more ideal weight balance :mrgreen:

Speaking of the seat, it's about an inch higher than the Cannondale, and looks a bit wrong to be elevated that much. The butt pad could go back further too. I feel like this aspect of the bike isn't fully refined and may end up replacing the entire seat or modifying it.

I plan to give the bike another test ride tomorrow to sort out fitment adjustments. Then i need to start thinking about battery mounting and what kind of motor setup i want.
Ah, so close. I chose 120mm length cranks for comfort mostly, no need for maximal power output anyways as long as you have an electric motor to assist. Good news is that those square taper bottom brackets are available up to 140mm width on ebay.
Well my legs are extremely finnicky. I was born with a handful of bone deformities and the largest one was corrected recently by cutting my tibia in half and bolting it on to the appropriate anatomical position. It was out an entire 18 degrees.
There's still 3 deformities to fix but those will take an expert and i have not found one..

Riding a BBS02 before i had this surgery actually triggered patellafemoral syndrome which took 4 months of physical therapy to fix and had me in crippling, stuck in bed kind of pain when the PFS started.

I'm quite sure that this is because of the wide *and* uneven Q factor in the pedals.

So going wider than i propose with the pedals makes me very, very nervous.
Okay, i have on order..
A crank 42T, 44T, 48T and 52T chainring.
A 24T for the left mid drive from Vuelta usa.
A 15T and 16T disc brake sprocket for a front geared hub motor.

The suspension fork idea continues to look worse. I browsed around quite a bit looking for a narrower fork with decent quality and could not find one. Mine is one of the most narrow. The best available option is a Spinner Grind 20" which has narrower stanchions and would likely clear the cranks.. but quality control on those forks is horrendously bad.

I think a carbon fiber front fork would suffice, if i can find one with disc brake mounting holes.

Original crank chainring is 32T and left mid drive is 22T which gives an initial reduction of 1:1.45.
42T and 24T will give 1:1.75.. which means my gearing tops out at 20% faster.

new chainline.jpg

The larger front chain stage has two benefits.. one being that more teeth = more power handling capability.. the second being that it opens up a prime area of real estate for a larger hub such as a Bafang G310.. which per the simulator, could operate at around 600w-700w continuous on 48v and provide BBS02 type power without the reliability issues.

Aesthetically speaking, a larger front chainring with a tiny motor behind it does look much better.. :)

Ok.. motors?

A G310 in standard winding does 350rpm loaded on 48v. The smallest disc brake cog is 15T and the largest 140bcd chainring i've found is 52T. This gives a 3.466:1 reduction ratio which would result in a 100.9 rpm pedaling cadence. Close enough to my ideal cadence that it will work.

I also have ample room with the larger spacing to run a dual reduction system and plenty of bolt holes to make a solid mounting plate for that though.. so the sky is the limit for using other motors. Cool. :)
I just had a wicked idea.

If on the front stage, i put that 52T up front and keep the 22T on the rear.. I will have a stupid 1:2.36 reduction ratio..
That means if i am pedaling at 90rpm, then the sprockets in the middle of the bike are turning at 212.4 rpm..

Obviously this would give me hilariously stupid gearing when it comes to pedaling. Fixing that is just a matter of changing the mid drive gearing for the pedal power.

But 212rpm at the crank is a dream come true because it just takes a 2:1 ratio to hook up a hub that spins at 424rpm.. :bigthumb:
Also because it is spinning faster, there is less torque on the bb and swingarm..
Perhaps this means i could push more power through bike chain than most people do

A quick visual estimation of what that would look like:


And that mid drive crank.. it allows me to do whatever the hell i want up front with pedal spacing etc.. :thumb:
I looked at SR Suntour's fork offerings again. I really want to make front suspension work.
The Suntour M3010 has 40mm of travel and 25.4mm wide stanchions. It is 20mm narrower at the top. Yay!
However, it is discontinued and was recalled at one point for a bolt that would break. So.... no.

Bachetta sells a nice 20" carbon fork for $300 which has a lesser rake. But some previous models of ray 2 have a rake like this.. so it may work.. not ideal.. but an option.

Nazca sells this MEKS/SASO fork which has a nice rake to it and is also carbon/aluminum. The price is eye watering.
But it seems to have a proper rake for the bike, which is a huge win. I'm guessing it's narrower than the suntour, so i sent an email. The crown is also notably taller than my suntour, which would help a lot with clearance.

2020-12-07 18_09_28-meks-saso-suspension-fork-20-meks-saso-for-ao-nazc.jpg (1321×1321) - Brave.jpg

There's also a spinner grind 20" air fork ( right?? ) which looks rather narrow and also has a taller crown that i'm inquiring about on pinkbike. The rake is suboptimal though.

In reading about headsets and forks i discovered there is some wiggle room..
I could go with a headset that's a few mm taller.. seems like the most sane option.

There are also crown races which are up to 10mm tall.
I could actually buy a few crown races, grind the top off, and metal epoxy the current crown race to these spacers to make a tall crown race.. the SR Suntour XCT JR L has a bulged section that's 10mm tall.. so this would actually work. For extra strength, i could also metal epoxy this 10mm assembly to the fork.

The Nazca custom fork with one of the spacer tricks is perfect. The question is.. does it have a carbon fiber steering tube.. if so.. i may be putting too much stress on that tube.

Another option is to go with a XCT JR 20 which has 40mm of travel vs my XCT JR-L 20 which has 65mm of travel. Add 10mm of space and the Ray 2 would sit only 50mm ( 2 inch ) taller and i could install a 14 x 2.25" motorcycle tire ( 18" equivalent ) and wind up having the front end sit only 1 inch taller.. easily correctable with a slightly taller shock.

This is a hard choice!!

..i'm drooling at the idea of a 14" suspended moto wheel up front though.. the Cannondale with it's 16" front suspension and a bike tire rides like a Cadillac already.. this would be even smoother than that.. :shock:
neptronix said:
There are also crown races which are up to 10mm tall.
I could actually buy a few crown races, grind the top off, and metal epoxy the current crown race to these spacers to make a tall crown race.. the SR Suntour XCT JR L has a bulged section that's 10mm tall.. so this would actually work. For extra strength, i could also metal epoxy this 10mm assembly to the fork.

I tried a similar solution, mechanically a solid structure but ruined my bikes handling because I needed such a large spacer (30mm). I ordered a precision hardened steel bearing spacer that had the right ID of 30mm similar to a crown race, put my original crown race on top of that with some aluminium can shims to fill the gap between 28.6mm steerer tube and the crown race.
Interesting.. why did it not work? were the spacers too loose?

I imagine that if you order up a few crown races.. they're a perfect diameter.. epoxying them together may not be necessary due to the fork being compressed with the star nut too..

In looking at dozens of forks yesterday, i've noticed they all have around 10mm of space at the lower part of the tube.. so this trick is applicable across the board.

The guy with the air version of the spinner fork says the top of the crown is 150mm and provided this measurement to prove it.


My suntour measures at ~165mm here, so this is -7.5mm narrower on each side.. which means i am left hunting for a couple MM of side clearance.. easily achievable with one of my tricks.

The spinner air fork is a little too tall but i have seen a few threads on mtbr about how to shorten or lengthen it, as well as remove the inherent stiction of a $150 fork.. the air pressure can range from 30psi-100psi too.. i think it would be perfect.. except for the difference in rake, which i imagine would make steering twitchy at low speeds but that's okay.. i can compensate with wider handlebars and accept this negative i think.

I'm working a deal on that fork as we speak.


Given that the bike will be 1 inch taller than stock.. this raise will worsen my center of gravity.

There is an easy half an inch of seat drop achievable by tilting the seat upwards and redrilling the front rail hole an equivalent amount. More drilling, cutting, and custom made seat-rail adapters could increase this total seat drop to about 1 inch which would be a lot more aesthetically pleasing vs the current seat look which is unnecessarily elevated.

The stock seat mount is overly thick and heavy.. it's possible for me to make a new lighter one instead of modifying the current one.. i might do that instead.

The stock seat has an exaggerated lumbar curve which will be anatomically incorrect after modification.. but adjusting the zip ties that hold the seat mesh should be able to adjust for this. Perhaps with a fully custom seat mount, i could use an entirely different rear seat back, which would be very nice actually.. hmm.
Raising the crown race worked mechanically fine, even with the flimsy alu can shims for centering. I was planning on welding the crown race to spacer, but I ended up modifying my frame to get the chainline I needed. Problem was I used 30mm longer fork + 30mm spacer, which ruined the geometry and made the bike horrible to ride.
Oh, a geometry problem.. makes sense when you're doing such a massive change of angle.
Do you have a build thread on this bike? if so, link it.

Luckily this bike has all the right bits and pieces for raising/lowering each side. Otherwise i would not attempt such tomfoolery. Because the weight is already biased backwards to an extreme already.
I'll also be modifying things so i can sit more forward.. and the electrics will be up front too.
Just waiting on parts here and undecided about the motor.
I have been on the hunt for the most efficient/light motor money can buy. Otherwise i'm going with the Bafang G310 i have.

Keyde has some updated dual reduction geared motors and they claim peak efficiency at 91% at 2.3kg.


I'm asking for a dyno graph as this is hard to believe. This is achievable with 0.15mm-0.2mm stator laminations and high quality motor construction.. we see efficiencies in the 95% range in RC motors with these thin laminations.

Removing the additional axle length and internal controller may make it a 2kg motor. Removal of the controller will increase the continuous power output too. :bigthumb:

Another option is the 'lightest bike kit'. Very impressive for the 1.5kg claimed for the 500w unit. I imagine that the motor is also very high efficiency, given the weight. Asked them about it on their youtube page.

neptronix said:
Just waiting on parts here and undecided about the motor.
I have been on the hunt for the most efficient/light motor money can buy. Otherwise i'm going with the Bafang G310 i have.

did you rule out the sx1 and sx2?
maiz said:
did you rule out the sx1 and sx2?

I never really looked into that motor. I just did now.

I have to admit the SX1/2 is underrated AF. The efficiency 'sweet spot' is in a perfect place for my ideal wattage ( 500-750w ). And nearly hitting 88% efficiency is amazing for a geared motor. It likely has 0.20-0.27mm lams, and friction optimized reduction gears. Also, if i just threw it in a 20" wheel, having 1 less pole and a slightly smaller reduction than the MAC makes it more ideal for high RPM operation in 20" wheels. But i'm committed to the idea of a mid drive.

Two scenarios:

2020-12-13 09_56_19-Window.png

2020-12-13 10_10_23-Window.png

The real problem with the motor is how tall it is. Removing half of the spoke flanges results in a height of 140mm. It would bulge out below my chain, which looks bad.

Shengyi makes two other smaller motors that have a disc brake attachment.
DGW07C-FA at 3.3kg and ~120mm tall after the flanges are cut off. single 1.4:3 reduction ratio. 350w at 36v.
DGW12D at 2kg and ~100mm tall after the flanges are cut off. 1:11 or 1:12 reduction ratio.

The DGW07C-FA is very heavy for it's size. I wonder where the weight is. Maybe it has generous copper fill which would be good for pushing it hard/efficiency.

I've sent an email asking for power graphs.

The keyde is my favorite hub if the 90% efficiency is real. I've sent keyde a second email asking for a power graph because i have not heard from them for 2 days now.
Shengyi tells me the motor efficiency is the same for all the small models and big ones.. but did not give me a graph for any. I'm asking for graphs again.

Keyde sent me this. I believe this is their lower grade 100SWXRDC33:

2020-12-14 11_32_47-Window.jpg

This test is at 33v and the peak efficiency is a little higher than their motor listing.

This graph tells me the smaller lower quality 100mm tall motor can probably do 400w continuous if we can figure out how to shed 50w of heat.. maybe some of that 50w of heat is gear friction and not stator heat.. with a cooling pocket in place of the controller this may be able to be pushed further. And who knows what happens at 48v..

Also, the max_pout/max_torque values are gimped..

The S100* motors have a little higher efficiency than the 100* motors, so this continuous power figure for the S100 may be more like 500w on 36v... quite good for a 2kg motor that can probably be shaved down to 1.6kg aka 3.5lbs..

My guess for the 2.3kg S110 motors on 36v is 600w continuous..

Asking for a S110 graph and also what thickness of laminations are in these motors to get these efficiencies.
The fork is here.

The top of spinner grind air measures 152mm and the suntour measures 165+ mm.

The crown on the spinner is maybe 10mm taller, which is good.

Distance between my pedals is 140mm, so there's 6mm of metal to remove from them at a minimum.. not a big deal. Lots of options to make this fork fit.

One weird thing about the spinner is that it has a higher travel but is about 20mm less tall.. and it can be modified to be shorter than that. So i may get away with a 20 x 2.0" bike tire on the front and not have to do a custom wheel build for a 14" scooter tire :bigthumb:


The spinner is about 1lbs less also.

Looking forward to fitting it soon :thumb:
neptronix said:
Another confounder is that my fork, a Suntour XCT Jr, has an outward bulge at the top. I would have a dramatically easier time clearing the fork if not for this :roll:


So i have these options, in order of palatability..
1) Better eccentric BB to give me 3mm backwards clearance.
2) Wider bb -4.5mm side to side.
3) Lower headset components that are a couple MM taller. Perhaps a custom taller crown race?
4) Hacking some metal off the end of the cranks. There's quite a bit of extra metal to sacrifice.. and given that this is a semi recumbent and the cranks will never be stood on.. i feel this would be safe to do.
5) Switch to a crappier, but ~4mm narrower fork.
6) Depending if that flare-out bulge is only for fashion style or actually structurally strength, you could probably grind out the bulge on the outer edges easily enough. Shape/sand/paint so it looks uniform.

EDIT: Looks like you already obtained another fork. Carry on.
Ok, the fork is a better fit but i am going to have to break out the big guns to get it to work:



Simulating a 7mm crown raise, i still have a ways to go. 7mm of metal would need to be shaved off the pedals which is not doable currently because the pedal bolt itself might be within the radius of rotation. So i need to do the headset trick and the eccentric adjuster trick. I may also go 5mm wider on the pedals.

The exercise bike at my gym has 160mm pedal inner diameter and hurts my outer meniscus, but only slightly. So i think i can handle going from 140mm inner pedal clearance to 145mm without issue.

Between all these tricks i can make this work.

The tech rep at maxarya says the bike did have chromoly fork at one point. And they're looking to redesign the frame one day to have the BB in the frame. So the next guy who walks in my footsteps won't have to do this hopefully.. :)