modifying S40 to lower seat angle?

rdl03

Active Member
I think I've established that I'm not V20 material. I am intrigued with the idea of bringing the seat angle on my S40 a bit lower, somewhere in the 30-35 degree range.
Has anyone done that?
I have a Thor seat that I bought, planning to cobble together a "Franken-CruzBike" for my indoor trainer, which gives me a spare seat to play with.
I imagine that I would end up with my butt farther forward than it currently is. I'm 5'6" so I have lots of room to move to pedals out farther.
Maybe that would even give me a bit more weight on the front wheel.

thanks!
 

cpml123

Zen MBB Master
I think I've established that I'm not V20 material. I am intrigued with the idea of bringing the seat angle on my S40 a bit lower, somewhere in the 30-35 degree range.
Has anyone done that?
I have a Thor seat that I bought, planning to cobble together a "Franken-CruzBike" for my indoor trainer, which gives me a spare seat to play with.
I imagine that I would end up with my butt farther forward than it currently is. I'm 5'6" so I have lots of room to move to pedals out farther.
Maybe that would even give me a bit more weight on the front wheel.

thanks!
It should be possible if you attach the Thor seat towards the front more so that the back can be leaned back more. The front attachment to the frame might be trickier though.
 

Bo6

Member
Just saw a modified S40 on the Cruzbike page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/226407825133603/user/1418293842/.
The angle was reported to be 30ish degrees.
What was the issue with the S20? I am considering an S20 or V40 to complement my Q45 and wonder if the 20 may be too much.

I think I've established that I'm not V20 material. I am intrigued with the idea of bringing the seat angle on my S40 a bit lower, somewhere in the 30-35 degree range.
Has anyone done that?
I have a Thor seat that I bought, planning to cobble together a "Franken-CruzBike" for my indoor trainer, which gives me a spare seat to play with.
I imagine that I would end up with my butt farther forward than it currently is. I'm 5'6" so I have lots of room to move to pedals out farther.
Maybe that would even give me a bit more weight on the front wheel.

thanks!
 

rdl03

Active Member
Just saw a modified S40 on the Cruzbike page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/226407825133603/user/1418293842/.
The angle was reported to be 30ish degrees.
What was the issue with the S20? I am considering an S20 or V40 to complement my Q45 and wonder if the 20 may be too much.
I'm 72. I've never been a particularly fast cyclist, but, as a Randonneur, hoping to get to the point where I'm doing the long rides that are characteristic of the sport on my Cruzbike. I think I asked the question in the FB group, and the feedback I got suggests that the V20 probably isn't the best fit for the kind of cycling I do.
 

castlerobber

Zen MBB Master
easier said than done....
The Silvio 2.2, aka "White Silvio," was the immediate predecessor of the S30, and was very similar. It had a front fork with a small head-shock, and a slightly different chainstay. Seat angle 27-28 degrees. The S30 has the same frame, IIRC, but with an unsuspended fork that didn't compensate for the missing shock. This changed the seat angle to 33 degrees.

LarryOz posted a link to a Facebook Marketplace listing for a Silvio 2.2 the other day (the seller is calling it an S30, but it isn't). If you're interested, it's at this link.
 

Black Hawk Down

Senior Rookie
I had the same issue and went with the Q45, as you can customize it to much lower angles. I'll probably try to sell my S40 eventually. I still have a V20 for road riding.
 

rfneep

Well-Known Member
easier said than done....
FWIW, I have an S30 that I've been thinking of putting up for sale. It is one of the last ones sold and is in excellent condition and I have lots of options available for it (e.g. seats, sliders, etc.). Give me holler if you wish to discuss it.

Ray
 

Robert Holler

Administrator
Staff member
The S30 was a once-and-only frame. There is only one S30. The other white frame is the Silvio, that was retrospectively named (kind of by accident) the "Silvio S30" much after the actual S30 was built. It was only the "Silvio" prior to this. The S30 replaced what was the Silvio. But those older models are NOT actual S30 - they are not the same. So there is no "Silvio S30." I know this because I was there when they were welded. :cool::p The bike batch previous to the actual S30 was the Silvio only - the name "S30" was never discussed or even invented until that model was well into production 18 months or so after the last batch of Silvio's were made and already selling.

The "S30" name was meant to be a complete change from "Silvio" in order to completely delineate it as its own model - with a more solid front end and unique graphic that only said "S30" on the side. The "Silvio" name was intended to be 100% abandoned at that point. It was our first model where we decided to get away from the names like Silvio and Vendetta to more "numbers" for the models (S30 and then V20, then S40). But at some point there was an article that said "Silvio S30" and it embedded like a lone star tick and here we are.... the misinformation machine is real.

The older welded frame Silvio was actually much closer to the modern S40 as far as seat angle goes. Then over time the hydroformed Silvio morphed a bit and kind of became something else.

Main differences:

S30 - No front suspension fork and very slightly altered geometry as a result (because the front suspension fork did not work as intended always - even on the older models - the previous white Silvio just before the S30 did have a suspension front end)
S30 - Triangular hole in the rear gusset (Silvio had a round hole in the same place)
S30 - Unique paint job that had "S30" graphic and the new "Z" logo on the hydroformed tube
S30 - Different rear and triangle that had a slightly altered rear elastomer position and angle

Those are the biggies that allow one to tell at 25 feet looking at the bikes which one is which. I have seen repainted S30's that are sold as "Silvio" incorrectly - the triangular hole is the main giveaway in that case.

The S30 was sadly not as fast as the V20 and also not as competent a climber as the then-being-prototyped-by-me handmade S40. The S40 handbuilt prototype was tested against the production S30 for nearly 13 months before its reveal and decision to produce the new S40 as opposed to another batch of S30's. The S40 just made more sense and was different enough from the V20 to stand out as its own machine with its own purpose and abilities that we did not have a good model for at the time. The S30 just was too much a gray zone. And the rear end was not at all suitable to attaching racks or carrying anything, and there were no mounts on the frame for anything like that. Heavy bags draped over the seat would cause the rear suspension to have too much lateral feel in my opinion so to me that was a negative and why the S40 hs a solid rear end.

In our side-by-side testing of the different models, I likened the S30 to the "wannabe racer" that would always lose to the V20 in any race or rolling hill riding, and the S40 was the ultimate workhorse machine that did all the stuff the V20 and S30 was not intended to do - like carry 4 panniers plus a trunk bag like a champion of the touring world.

And when it comes to production/warehousing/etc. we can only have so many models at one time and also only can make them one at a time (especially the hydroformed models) so at that time the S40 was the winner and for marketing/sales it is easier to differentiate and reduce the infamous decision paralysis of having too many models that are too close together in purpose and appearance.

If you score an S30 it is a great bike - don't get me wrong - it fits the middle zone between the two bikes: Not as fast as the V20 in a flat out race, but it does climb better than the V20 on a sustained climbing challenge for most riders. But, it cannot tour or as easily do the clydesdale hauling that the S40 was designed for and the S40 will pull away from the S30 in the same climbing challenge every time....
 
Last edited:

Karl42

Active Member
I think I've established that I'm not V20 material. I am intrigued with the idea of bringing the seat angle on my S40 a bit lower, somewhere in the 30-35 degree range.
Has anyone done that?

Instead of lowering the seat angle of an S40, I think it would be easier to start with a V20 and raise the seat angle. I've seen many people do that, including several examples on the forum here. For the simplest case that is not adjustable while riding, you just need a wedge or support strut under your seat.
 

Black Hawk Down

Senior Rookie
Instead of lowering the seat angle of an S40, I think it would be easier to start with a V20 and raise the seat angle. I've seen many people do that, including several examples on the forum here. For the simplest case that is not adjustable while riding, you just need a wedge or support strut under your seat.
I've used the S40 wedge that Cruzbikes sells but I used it in my V20.

1715882246626.png

It worked but I still wanted a better seat so I went with a Thor Carrier seat, which brings the V20 back up the perfect height for me so I'm comfortable sitting up but not so high as to cause recumbutt. If you are just looking for a road bike, the V20 with a Thor seat is the lighter, faster option. If you want to attach bags, you'll want either the S40 or Q45.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo6

Black Hawk Down

Senior Rookie
I had the carrier on my S40 originally but then moved it to the V20 which was super comfortable:

1716073039638.png

1716072864503.png

Now I've moved it to my Q45. Don't have that bike ready yet for pictures.

Bill
 
Top